Information relating to change of caste certificate by Shri Harish Meena, ex IPS was denied claiming that it was third party personal information - CIC: Denial u/s 8(1)(j) upheld, file an affidavit that rest of the information is not available with them
5 May, 2016Decision Dated 08.02.2016
ORDER
1. Shri P.N. Sharma filed an application dated 21.03.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Rajasthan Government seeking information on three points relating to change of caste certificate by Shri Harish Meena, ex IPS including
(i) certified copy of his appointment letter,
(ii) certified copy of the caste certificate submitted by him at the time of his enrolment, and
(iii) if he has submitted any other caste certificate in recent years, provide certified copy of the same.
2. The appellant filed second appeal dated 30.09.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the information has been denied by the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the plea of being third party information and that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) too upheld the reply of the CPIO. The RTI application which was filed before the CPIO, Rajasthan Government has been transferred to the M.H.A. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO concerned to provide the information as sought by him
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri P.N. Sharma was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Under Secretary, MHA was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant in point no. 2 of the RTI application is third party personal information and hence, the same is exempted 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, 2005. With regard to point no. 1 and 3 of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that the information is not available with them as work relating to allocation to the IPS officers was initially being dealt by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) till the Civil Services Examination (CSE), 1993 and the UPSC Examination dossiers of the IPS officers were maintained by the DoPT, subsequently, this work was transferred to the MHA from CSE, 1994. The respondent further submitted that the MHA vide letter dated 05.04.2006 has requested the DoPT to transfer all the remaining UPSC examination dossiers of IPS officers upto CSE 1993 available with them to the MHA. The respondent further stated that after scrutinizing the dossiers it has been concluded that the name of Shri Harish Meena does not appear in the dossier. Therefore, it is not available with the respondent.
Decision:
5. The Commission observes that the information sought in point no. 2 is third party personal information and hence, the same is exempted 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, 2005. The Commission further observes that the information sought in point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application is not available with respondent as per their submissions. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to file an affidavit, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, deposing that the information sought in point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application is not available with them and that no information has been suppressed. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant.
6. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri P.N. Sharma v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/003312/SB