Whether the annual immovable property statement was submitted during the deputation of Sh. Yogesh Kumar Singhal at CIC? - CIC: Appellant was seeking a reply to interrogative queries and also seeking reasons for administrative actions which not permissible
12 May, 2023Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the period of deputation of Sh. Yogesh Kumar Singhal at CIC.
2. Provide details of his pay & allowances during deputation with CIC.
3. Whether the annual immovable property statement was submitted during his deputation at CIC? If so, then provide a copy of the same.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO and the decision passed by the FAA. He casted unsubstantiated aspersions on Sh. Yogesh Kumar Singhal and alleged that he committed dereliction of his duties. He further stated that denial under Section- 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005 was improper and bad in law. He requested the Commission to direct the disclosure of annual immovable property statement as requested for in point no. 3.
The CPIO refuted the contentions of the appellant and submitted that a pointwise and apt reply, duly conforming to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 was given on 13/12/2021. He stated that the information sought for in point no. 3 was not provided due to the bar of disclosure embodied in Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the information sought for in point no. 5 was denied on the ground of non-conformance with Section- 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005.
The written submissions of the appellant dated 11/03/2023 were taken on the record of the Commission.
Observations:
After examining the entire record of the case and taking into account the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observed that the CPIO has given a suitable response to the appellant on points no. 1, 2 and 4. The Commission finds no infirmity in the aforesaid replies.
It was noted that the information requested for at point no. 3 was denied under Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission endorses the view of the CPIO that the personal information as to the assets of an employee cannot be given to a third-party unless there is any public interest involved. The appellant has not raised the plea of involvement of public interest in the instant matter at any stage. The Commission placed reliance on the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212 :
“Personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.”
The Commission also observed that the queries no. 3-5 of the appellant were not as per Section- 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant was seeking a reply to interrogative queries and also seeking reasons for administrative actions which is impermissible under the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission relied on decision of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:
“….. In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; as follows.
Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.”
Therefore, it was concluded that the information sought for in points no. 3-5 of the appellant’s RTI application were not as per Section- 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the CPIO has given the information as available on point no. 4. Therefore, the Commission holds that the queries of the appellant have been reasonably responded to. No further action lies.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission is not inclined to provide any relief to the appellant. With the above observations, the second appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Anand Singh Chauhan v. Central Information Commission, File no.: - CIC/CICOM/A/2022/606942; Date of Decision: 15/03/2023