CIC: Denial of information citing Section 8(1)(j) is legally untenable since the Appellant is seeking his own information; CIC took grave exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing despite being served the hearing notice and admonished him
2 Nov, 2024Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.02.2023 seeking the following information:
MYSELF ARUN KUMAR S/O SONVIR SINGH CANDIDATE OF UHQ RALLY HELD AT ARTY CENTER NASIK.
1-I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE CUT OFF MARKS CEE HELD AT ARTY CENTER NASIK MAHARASTRA ON 15 JANUARY 2023.
2-I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT MY SCORE DETAILS MY ROLL NO IS ARN/U.P/AGD/150123/140751 ATTACHED WITH ORGINAL PRACTICE SET C.”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.03.2023 stating as under:
“It is intimated that CEE of UHQ enrolment Sep 2022 held on 15 Jan 2023. OMR answer sheets for the said enrolment was evaluated and checked through E-Dmass system without any manual interference at any stage.
Further as per Para 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act-2005, the information asked relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.03.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC
Respondent: Absent.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent did not participate in the hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance.
Decision:
On perusal of records of the case and examining the facts of the appeal, it is noted that the denial of information by the Respondent citing Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act is not found convincing and is legally untenable since the Appellant is seeking his own information. It is further noted that the Respondent has neither appeared before the Commission nor has informed the Commission regarding the reason for his/her absence. Thus, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing despite being served the hearing notice and he/she is admonished for the same. The Commission reproaches the Respondent for providing RTI reply without application of mind and cautions them to remain careful in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act.
Under these circumstances, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to re-examine the RTI Application and accordingly provide a revised reply by furnishing the relevant information to the Appellant, within three weeks of receipt of this order. If the Respondent requires assistance from any other office/officer for compliance with the above directions, the same shall be sought by invoking Section 5(4) of RTI Act.
The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Arun Kumar v. HQ Arty Centre, File No: CIC/IARMY/A/2023/127956; Date of Decision : 03.10.2024