Application for knowing the immovable property of a public servant

Background

The appellant sought information relating to Shri A.K. Pandey, Additional Commissioner, Central Excise. The PIO provided all information in, except the Immovable Property Return (IPR) of the said officer to the appellant, claiming exemption of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the FAA upheld the reply of the PIO.

View of CIC

During the hearing the respondent submitted that the Additional Commissioner was the supervisory officer of the appellant during the period 2003-04 who made an adverse remark in the ACR of the appellant during the said years. For the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 as well, another Additional Commissioner made adverse remarks in the ACR of the appellant. As a result of adverse remarks in ACR for the said period, the appellant’s name was not considered for MACP Scheme. Aggrieved with the reporting of adverse remark made by the aforementioned officers, the appellant has started filing RTI applications seeking personal information of the two officers.

View of the CIC

The Commission referred to the order of its Division Bench regarding disclosure of IPR (Shri P.P. Rajeev v. Cochin Port Trust in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00707) wherein it was held that for disclosure of IPR, the request will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis under the provisions of Sections 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. and 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission remitted the case back to the PIO with the direction to consider the matter under the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) and/or Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act and then take a view as enjoined by either or both sections, which shall be communicated to the appellant within four weeks of the receipt of the order.

Citation: Shri Arun Kumar Pati v. Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax in file no. CIC/SS/A/2011/001135