Expense certificate for the purpose of remuneration/salary of CSC was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial not justified as general information was asked relating to expenses; directed the PIO to provide suitable information to the appellant
14 Jun, 2022
Information Sought
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether any amount has been allocated to CSC-SPV or CSC-SPV has submitted any expense certificate for the purpose of remuneration/salary of CSC DPMEs/District Manager of District Birbhum, West Bengal?
2. If yes, then provide copies of the said documents.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 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.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 22.02.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED038582040IN. The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was provided vide letter dated 24.07.2020.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 24.07.2020 replied to the appellant via e-mail and denied the information sought u/s 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 Commission finds the denial not justified as general information was asked relating to expenses.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide suitable information to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Kapil Sinha v. CSC e-Governance Services India Limited in File No. CIC/MOEIT/A/2020/686349, Date of Decision: 10/03/2022