Information relating to an official including the house loan taken by him in 1996-97 & his post was denied claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(e) & 11 - FAA: exemption u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) invoked - CIC: disclose the designation and payband of officers

Facts:

1. The appellant Shri Sunil Singh Jodwal has submitted RTI application dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. August 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Insurance Co. Ltd, Indore; seeking information relating to Mr. Om Prakash Jorwal S/o Ganesh Prasad Jorwal, currently posted at NICL Branch No.5, 1Manish Bagh Colony, Vikram Tower, Indore regarding house lone taken by him during the year 1996-1997 and his post on which he was working during the year 1996-1997.

2. Vide CPIO Order dated 06 September 2012, CPIO denied the requisite information on the ground that the information sought is being exempted 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; and 11 of RTI Act, 2005. Information was furnished within prescribed period of time.

3. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dated 18 September 2012.

4. Vide FAA Order dated 28 September 2012, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and held that as the appellant has not proved the larger public interest by discloser of requested information, therefore the sought information is being exempted 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) of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be disclosed. FAA passed the Order within prescribed period of time.

5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the appellant preferred Second appeal before the Commission.

6. The matter was heard today. The respondent Shri Udai Dabdvate CPIO was present at the hearing and made submissions from Indore. Shri Sunil Singh, appellant was also present at the hearing and made his submissions from Indore.

7. The respondent submitted that information as available has already been provided to the appellant. In other points 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. of the RTI Act is attracted and hence information may not be disclosed.

Decision Notice

8. The Commission has heard the submission made by both the parties. The Commission is of the view that the information sought has already been provided to the appellant.

9. However, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the designation and payband (Salary structure) of the officers as sought by the RTI Applicant for the year 1996-97 to the appellant within one week of the receipt of the order as the same is not personal information.

10. With the above observations, the case is closed at the Commission’s end

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Sunil Singh Jodwal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000039/MP