Information regarding the grounds on which her mother got employment in the life time of her father was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: There is a personal dispute between the third party and the appellant; No public interest demonstrated by the appellant
6 Dec, 2021Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information with regard to appointment of Smt. Sumati Rani Bhakta, W/o Late Lakshmi Kanta Bhakta, PPO No. C/CORR/FYS/9377/2007 dated 17/01/2008:
1. Provide date of joining of Smt. Sumati Rano Bhakta, W/o late Lakshmi Kanta Bhakta, in the service. Also provide the grounds for her appointment.
2. What were the reasons and circumstances for her appointment on compassionate grounds?
3. Against whose service she has been given compassionate appointment.
Grounds for 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 submitted that she is the daughter of Late Lakshmi Kanta Bhakta and Sumati Rani Bhakta and wants to know on what ground her mother got employment in the life time of her father, who was the original employee of Metal and Steel Factory, Ishapore, West Bengal. She further pointed out that there is a dispute regarding landed property among the legal heirs. Therefore, she is entitled to receive the information as she is the daughter of the third party as well Late Lakshmi Kanta Bhakta. She further submitted that her father was mentally not well and therefore her mother was given employment.
The CPIO could not be contacted as the telephone number was not connecting.
Observations:
The Commission observed that there is a personal dispute between the third party and the appellant. Moreover, there was no public interest demonstrated by the appellant. As the third party personal information cannot be given 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 accepts the reply of the CPIO and is not inclined to provide any relief.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, and as the appellant failed to demonstrate any larger public interest, the reply of the CPIO is accepted and no further action is called for.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shikha Paul v. Metal & Steel Factory in File no.: - CIC/DODFP/A/2020/113465, Date of Decision: 03/11/2021