Seeking travelling, hotel and conveyance bills in respect of an officer of the bank – CIC: amount of LFC claimed and approved to be given - if the public authority has given some advance under the LFC rules, the sanction order for the same to be provided
9 Sep, 2013ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 2152012 asking for certified copies of all travelling, hotel and conveyance bills in respect of an officer of the bank.
2. The CPIO responded on 1462012, denying the information to the appellant 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 on the ground of personal information. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 2062012. The FAA responded on 1172012 and concurred with the decision of the CPIO. The appellant approached the Commission on 2072012 in a second appeal.
Hearing:
3. I heard both the parties through videoconferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 2152012 and stated that he has asked information on a single point but the respondent has denied to him the information which should have been given by the respondent. The appellant stated that the information sought pertained to the details of the Leave Fare Concession (LFC) facility that was availed of by the officer referred to in the RTI application.
5. The respondent stated that this information has been denied to the appellant 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 because this was personal information. The respondent said that the appellant was seeking information that included hotel and conveyance bills.
6. The appellant stated that the amount spent on the LFC facility provided to the officer concerned is public money, and that the amount paid on hotel bills and conveyance cannot be described as personal. The appellant said that a boarding pass cannot be described as a personal information. The appellant said that he has simply asked about the details of the journey undertaken by the officer along with the copies of the documents including the boarding passes submitted.
7. The respondent stated that the information is personal as understood by the CPIO and accordingly the response has been sent by the CPIO to the appellant.
8. It would be appropriate for the respondent to provide the appellant information about the amount of LFC claimed and the LFC approved by the public authority; and if the public authority has given some advance under the LFC rules, a copy of the sanction order be also provided. The rest of the information sought would be personal information.
Decision:
9. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information about the LFC claimed, the LFC approved, along with a copy of any sanction order. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Sh. M.G. Soni v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000999/04005