PIO: Project work details of Ms. Ratneshwari Ojha is personal information of a third party which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - The CIC found no scope of intervention in the matter and upheld the submissions of the PIO
14 May, 2021Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application on 06.04.2019 seeking information on following points;
1. “Provide the following details in respect of Project code Ref No. R/Dev/M28-12/23827 as per BHU records only.
A-
(a) Provide photocopies of all the submit documents by Prof. V.S. Sundaram to the BHU.
(b) Provide all the documents photocopy issued/sanctioned/approval by BHU in this project.
(c) All dates (DD/MM/YYYY) with amount of sanctioning the instalments in this project (mention it) to the PI Prof. V.S. Sundaram.
(d) Name of expenditure overheads for using /making payment from the project allocated fund datewise (DD/MM/YYYY) with name of the beneficiary and purpose of payment.
(e) Date of final submission, progress reports of the project, degree and certificates issued, duration of project work stopped with date in DD/MM/YYYY format due to shortage/non payment of instalment by the project fund of BHU/by BHU only.
(f) Name of post and amount of funds allocated/paid (date wise in DD/MM/YYYY format) with reason to Ms. Rateshwari Ojha , Ms. Rashmi Jaiswal, Mr. Sanjay Manjhi and Mr. Ram Nayan ram in this project with transaction details like cheque no. date of issue of cheques, date of actual payment of cheque amount with the name of beneficiary.
(g) Mention the name of project guideline with its year applicable on this project (like project guidelines revised 2010/2018).
B. Details of Ms. Rateshwari Ojha in this project code Ref. No. R/Dev/M-28- 12/23827;
(i) Name of her post/all posts name and all monetary benefits received in the project by her with total amount.
(ii) Duties of Research/Project Assistant in this project and her also with name of all duties, all works.
(iii) Provision of survey in respect to Project/Research Assistant (like conducting, travelling allowances payment etc).
(iv) Mention all the months & year with date of working as project/Research Assistant.
(v) Survey done by Ratneshwari Ojha details like places visited, fooding, loading, travelling allowances/expenses paid, dates of doing survey, districts name visited with payment details like cheque no., transaction no., datewise etc.
(vi) Date of joining and exit as Project/Research Assistant. (vii) Date wise absent details during her entire job with reason.
C. Information about prof. V. Shunmugasundaram (Faculty of Commerce, BHU);
(i) year of suspension and dates in (DD/MM/YYYY)
(ii) Reason for charges of suspension.
(iii) All the actions taken by BHU during/for/after/ before his suspension for the charges.”
The CPIO furnished reply to the Complainant on 29.04.2019 stating as under:- “Point No. B (ii, iii, iv, v, vi and vii): Information not available in this office. Hence, your application is forwarded to Prof. V. Shunmugasundaram for reply directly to you.”
On 27.06.2019, the CPIO, Faculty of Commerce furnished the reply against point Nos. Point No. B ii, iii, iv, v, vi and vii to the Complainant. The relevant portion of which is as under:- “Point No. B.(ii) ,(iii) (iv):- Information already submitted to the same address to Ms. Rateneshwari Ojha and duties as per project guidelines. (v) No information available. (vi) Information already submitted to the same address to Ms. Rateneshwari Ojha (vii) No information available.”
Being dissatisfied with the CPIO’s reply on points no. B(ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) of the RTI application, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Kali Prasad, Assistant Registrar & CPIO, BHU present through video conference.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with available information answering all the queries of the instant RTI application has been provided to the Complainant through letters dated 29.04.2019 and 27.06.2019 respectively.
Decision
The Commission based upon a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought by the Complainant on points no. B (i) to (vii) of the RTI application pertains to the project work details of Ms. Ratneshwari Ojha which is personal information of a third party per se and the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The said observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. Yet, the CPIO has provided a factual reply the merits of which cannot be called into question. Moreover, the Complainant has not availed the opportunity to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submission.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter and upholds the submissions of the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Madhukar Ojha v. Banaras Hindu University in File No : . CIC/BANHU/C/2019/644977, Date of Decision: 01/04/2021