A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Information about ACP proposal - CIC is unhappy with the contradictory statements made by the Respondent which shows sheer disregard towards their own employees - CIC: Take relevant details from appellant so that requisite information should be provided

Appellant sought copies of noting w.r.t disciplinary proceedings pending against him - In a similar matter, the CIC order granting relief to the appellant has been stayed by Delhi High Court - CIC: no relief can be ordered in the matter at this stage

Percentage of attendance of student enrolled in PH.D. as per UGC - PIO: Information related to the personal information of other students, therefore the same was denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial upheld

CIC: Complainant is arguing on his grievance regarding 3rd MACP and challenging the correctness of the information provided; PIO provided information in the spirit of RTI Act - CIC: Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the Act

Alleging an unethical practices of taking money for passing PG clinical exam candidates, appellant sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner - CIC: Being a third party service matter, information exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

A candidate sought to know the number of attempts made for the examinations conducted by UPSC - PIO: The number of attempts of the candidates is checked at the time of final stage of selection only; Information was not available in a complied form

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

RTI applicant can seek compensation if a loss or detriment is suffered due to delay

Delhi HC orders removal of news articles and social media posts against a businessman on X

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Appellant: There is no employer-employee relationship between EPFO and the members and hence, fiduciary relationship does not exist; The members are not third party - CIC: Information sought is related to third parties and personal in nature

28 Aug, 2020

Information Sought:

In file No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135708 The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Date, month & year on which Sh. Munne Khan S/o Sh. Maksood Khan (U.P. Code No. 25613/687), Delhi Public School, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

In file No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135708 The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Date, month & year on which Sh. Munne Khan S/o Sh. Maksood Khan (U.P. Code No. 25613/687), Delhi Public School, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

In file No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135704 The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Date, month & year on which Sh. Devender Singh (U.P. Code No. 25613/349), S/o Charan Singh, Delhi Public School, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra

In file No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135705 The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Date, month & year on which Sh. Pawan Saini, S/o Radhey Shyam Saini (U.P. Code No. 25613/458), Delhi Public School, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

In file No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135702 The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Date, month & year on which Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma (U.P. Code No. 25649/35), S/o Sh. Harnarayan, M/s Mishra Travels and Service, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

2. Date, month & year on which Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma (U.P. Code No. 25613/678), S/o Sh. Harnarayan, Delhi Public School, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra

In file No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135701 The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Date, month & year on which Sh. Nagender Pandey (U.P. Code No. 25649/27), S/o Sh. Tejnarayan Pandey, M/s Mishra Travels and Service, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

2. Date, month & year on which Sh. Nagender Pandey (U.P. Code No. 25613/689), S/o Sh. Tejnarayan Pandey, Delhi Public School, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

In file No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135700 The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Date, month & year on which Sh. Manveer Singh (U.P. Code No. 25649/29), S/o Sh. Buddh Singh, M/s Mishra Travels and Service, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

In file No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135699 The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Date, month & year on which Sh. Pooran Chand Sharma (U.P. Code No. 25649/03), S/o Sh. Narayan Chandra Sharma, M/s Mishra Travels and Service, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

2. Date, month & year on which Sh. Pooran Sharma (U.P. Code No. 25613/355), S/o Sh. Narayan Chandra Sharma, Delhi Public School, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

In file No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135697 The appellant has sought the following information:

Date, month & year on which Sh. Ram Godha, S/o Lakhan Singh Godha (U.P. Code No. 25613/351), Delhi Public School, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

In file No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135695 The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Date, month & year on which Sh. Laxman Singh (U.P. Code No. 25649/02), S/o Sh. Shyamlal, M/s Mishra Travels and Service, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

2. Date, month & year on which Sh. Laxman Singh (U.P. Code No. 25613/688), S/o Sh. Shyamlal, Delhi Public School, Agra Road, Aligarh, became a member of EPFO, Agra.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO has denied the desired information u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & (j) of the RTI Act

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between EPFO and the members and hence fiduciary relationship does not exist. He further submitted that the members are not third party also. On a query by the Commission, the appellant did not mention any public interest but pressed on the fact that there is no third party relation. The CPIO submitted that an apt reply was given vide letter dated 11.12.2018 and from a perusal of the RTI and appeal it can be seen that he asked for information on behalf of Delhi Public School and therefore it is important to mention here that the information sought was submitted by them only and there is no rationale for asking for the same. He further submitted that in case the appellant had asked for the said information in his individual capacity, even then the same constitutes third party information and the same is their personal information which cannot be given in the absence of larger public interest being shown.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 11.12.2018 replied as follows:

“Members Name:

1. Shri Nagendra Pandey

2. Shri Uresh Kumar

3. Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma

4. Shri Pawan Saini

5. Shri Devendra Singh

6. Shri Munne Khan

7. Shri Ram Godha

8. Shri Manvir Singh

9. Shri Puran Chandra Sharma

10. Shri Laxman Singh

For the following reasons the information sought cannot be given to you. The PF accounts information are given only to the concerned person, as per Sec 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and (j) of the RTI Act the information is held as per fiduciary relationship, and as per Sec 11 the same is related to third party.”

The FAA vide order dated 30.04.2019 disposed of the first appeal and held as follows:

“5. After hearing both the parties, attention is drawn of the appellant to Sec 6(1) of the RTI Act according to which only a citizen can ask for information in individual capacity and the right is not available with a organization. The present appeal has been filed by the Administrative Officer and Advocate of Delhi Public School. In the instant case the information sought is exempted u/s 8 (1)(e) and (j) of the Act.”

Having heard both the parties and on a perusal of the records, it was noted that the appellant failed to justify that the information sought by him is not personal information of the members mentioned above. He also could not contest the plea taken by the FAA in his order on the basis of Sec 6(1) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the Commission holds that the information sought is related to third parties and personal in nature. Moreover, the appellant failed to justify larger public interest and hence the exemption under Sec 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. cannot be lifted. Hence, no further action is warranted in these cases.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Brij Mohan v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) in 1. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135708 2. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135707 3. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135704 4. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135705 5. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135702 6. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135701 7. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135700 8. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135699 9. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135697 10. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135695, Date of Decision: 09/07/2020

Appellant: There is no employer-employee relationship between EPFO and the members and hence, fiduciary relationship does not exist; The members are not third party - CIC: Information sought is related to third parties and personal in nature

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.