Copies of returns filed by two establishments were denied u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) - Appellant: respondents are demanding Rs.19.76 lakhs in respect of two contractors - CIC: provide the details based on which the demand of Rs.19.76 lakhs has been raised

Copies of various returns filed by two establishments were denied 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) - Appellant: respondents are demanding Rs.19.76 lakhs from them in respect of two contractors but the said contractors have given them an undertaking confirming that all the EPF dues have been paid by them - CIC: examine the issue and provide the complete details based on which the demand of Rs.19.76 lakhs has been raised

ORDER

Information sought:

The appellant vide his two RTI applications dated 28/05/2012 had sought the following information relating to M/s TDS Placement & services Pvt. Ltd. Bearing EPF code no. PB/CHD/21722 and M/s Vigil Securities bearing EPF code no. PB/CHD/21263.

1. Copies of Form-9, Form-2, Form 3A, Form-5A, Form-6A and challans.

2. Record of EPF pertaining to any establishment having independent EPF code.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The information was wrongly refused under section 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; & 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.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Chauhan & Mr. Paras Dogar appellant’s representative through VC (M):09318567799

Respondent: Mr. Amit Singla CAPIO through VC M: 9888167171

The CAPIO stated that the appellant had asked for copies of various returns filed by two establishments in which the personal details of all the employees of the organization are mentioned. He argued that the information relates to third party, is personal nature and held under fiduciary relationship and exempt under section 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; & 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. The appellant’s representative stated that the respondents are demanding an amount of Rs.19.76 lakhs from M/s. Coral Health Care Private Limited in respect of two contractors (viz. M/s TDS Placement & services Pvt. Ltd & M/s Vigil Securities) but the said contractors have given them an undertaking confirming that all the EPF dues have been paid by them. He further pleaded that the respondent may kindly examine their records and confirm whether any EPF dues are still pending from the said contractors in respect of contract workers provided by them to M/s. Coral Health Care Private Limited. The APIO stated that the appellant’s matter is dealt by their Shimla office and he will request his counterpart at Shimla to examine the issue and provide the complete details based on which the demand of Rs.19.76 lakhs has been raised. The appellant pleaded that the information should be supplied in a time bound manner and they may also be given an opportunity of hearing by the FAA/RPFC I Shimla. The APIO agreed.

Decision notice:

As agreed by the APIO the information as above should be provided to the appellant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. If, thereafter, the appellant has any further grievance in the matter the FAA/RPFC 1 Shimla may provide an opportunity of hearing to him. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Rajiv Chauhan v. EPFO in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001864/3996