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

Bio-data as submitted by an officer, details of any pending enquiry and related information was sought - PIO denied information to the appellant u/S 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: The service/appointment related details sought are hit by Section 8(1)(j)

8 Jul, 2022

CIC/VOCPT/A/2021/120530

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.02.2021 seeking the information regarding appointment/promotion of Sri. P. Shanmuganathan as CME at Chennai Port Trust, including inter-alia;

1. “Bio-data as submitted along with forwarding letter of VOC Port Administration (Tuticorin Port) of P. Shanmuganathan then Dy CME of VOC Port for the post of CME at Chennai Port Trust.

2. Whether there is any enquiry pending related to P. Shanmuganathan as DY CME and other earlier Post held by him at VOC Port at the time of applying for the post of CME in Chennai Port Trust.

3. If so, what is the stage of enquiry, if enquiry is concluded provide the copies of the enquiry and subsequent action thereupon by VOC Port.

4. Provide the copy of the information related to Vigilance Clearance by Vigilance department as forwarded for appointment of CME In Chennai Port Trust.”

The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 03.03.2021 under section 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2021. FAA’s order dated 17.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO and also informed the appellant that this Port is aligned with the RTI Online Web Portal, so that, Indian citizens can start filing RTI application with: - URL:https://rtiontine.qov.in.

CIC/VOCPT/A/2021/120668

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.02.2021 seeking the information regarding appointment/promotion of Smt. Suganthesewari as Dy CE (civil) at Chennai Fort Trust, including inter-alia;

1. Bio-data as submitted along with forwarding letter of VOC Port Administration (Tuticorin Port) of Smt. Suganthesewari as SE (Civil).

2. Whether there is any enquiry pending related to Smt. Suganthesewari as SE (Civil) on subsequent earlier post at VOC Port at the time of applying for the post of Dy CE in Chennai Port Trust.

3. If so, what is the stage of enquiry, if enquiry is concluded provide the copies of the enquiry and subsequent action thereupon by VOC Port.

4. Provide the copy of the information related to Vigilance Clearance by Vigilance department as forwarded for appointment of Dy CE In Chennai Port Trust.”

The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 03.03.2021 under section 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2021. FAA’s order dated 19.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO and also informed the appellant that this Port is aligned with the RTI Online Web Portal, so that, Indian citizens can start filing RTI application with: - URL:https://rtiontine.qov.in.

CIC/VOCPT/A/2021/122819

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.02.2021 seeking information regarding appointment/promotion of Smt. Suganthesewari as Dy CE (civil) at Chennai Port Trust, including inter-alia;

1. Copy of the order related to the appointment /promotion of Smt. Suganthesewari as Dy CE (civil) in Civil Engineering department of Chennai Port Trust.

2. Name of the officer and designation who are all constituted in the Department promotion committee and their recommendation.

3. Chairman's approval noting in respect of appointment/promotion recommendation for the post of Dy CE (civil) in Civil Engineering department of Chennai Port Trust.

4. Bio-data as submitted and forwarding letter of VOC Port Administration (Tuticorin Port) Copies of the information related to Vigilance Clearance by Vigilance department of VOC Port.

The CPIO furnished a point wise reply along with the relevant information to the appellant on 29.03.2021.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.04.2021. FAA’s order dated 06.05.2021 held as under:-

“Regarding Bio-data it is Third party details and the same cannot be disclosed as the same is exempted under clause 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the information furnished by the PIO vide letter dated 12.03.2021 and 29.03.2021 holds good.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s) on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent(s): R. Suganthesewari Priyadarshini Dy CE (civil) & PIO along with A. Vidya , Sr. Deputy Secretary & CPIO present through video-conference.

The Commission at the outset apprised the Appellant that the service/appointment related details of averred officer as sought by him through instant RTI Application(s) are hit by 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. In response to it, the Appellant contended that such information of public officers cannot be treated as personal information and should be made public. The CPIOs’ reiterated their denial of information sought.

Decision:

In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission observes from perusal of records that the CPIOs’ have appropriately denied the service/appointment related details of averred officer in response to instant RTI Application(s) to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 while explaining 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.The following was thus held:

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that 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…” (Emphasis Supplied)

In view of the aforesaid observations, the contentions of the Appellant that the information sought regarding public officer should be made public are rendered inconsequential.

Having observed as above, no further relief can be granted in the matters.

The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: N K Venkatesan v. V O Chidambaranar Port Trust and Chennai Port Trust in Files No : CIC/VOCPT/A/2021/120530 + CIC/VOCPT/A/2021/120668 + CIC/CPOTR/A/2021/122819, Date of Decision: 16/06/2022

Bio-data as submitted by an officer, details of any pending enquiry and related information was sought - PIO denied information to the appellant u/S 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: The service/appointment related details sought are hit by Section 8(1)(j)

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.