Copies of cleaning bills submitted by third parties were denied u/s 8(1)(j) - On the directions of FAA to reassess the photo copying charges, the appellant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.12/- instead of Rs. 930/- demanded initially - CIC: order upheld

O R D E R

RTI application

1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 28.8.2012 seeking copies of the cleaning bills paid to some persons. In all, information has been sought on 4 points. The CPIO, while denying information on first two points 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 the RTI Act, asked the appellant on 25.9.2012 to deposit photo copying charges of Rs.930/.

2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 25.10.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA, while generally upholding the reply of CPIO, directed the CPIO on 22.12.2012 to reassess the photo copying charges. The appellant approached the Commission on 31.1.2013 in second appeal.

Hearing

3. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.

4. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing and stated that the appellant had, through his RTI application of 28.8.2012, sought information on four points including copies of the cleaning bills submitted by him and also submitted by others.

5. The respondent stated that copies of the bills submitted by the appellant were provided to him on 25.9.2012. However, copies of the bills submitted by others were denied 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 the RTI Act. At the same time, the appellant was advised to deposit a sum of Rs.930/- towards photo copying charges for the information sought under points 3 and 4 of the RTI application.

6. The respondent further stated that on an appeal made by the appellant, the FAA directed the CPIO on 22.12.2012 to reassess the photo copying charges. The respondent informed that after taking a lenient view, the appellant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.12/- only which the appellant deposited through a bank draft and the information was provided to him on 29.12.2012.

Decision

7. Intervention of the Commission is not required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commission

Citation: Shri Amit Kumar v. State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000348/05710