Information relating to sanction of pension to a deceased ex-employee was denied u/s 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(b) - PIO: disclosure would affect the hearing of the matter regarding pension disbursement between his two wives - CIC: appeal dismissed

Information relating to sanction of pension to a deceased ex-employee was denied 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. & 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; - PIO: ex-employee had two wives, the matter is being heard regarding pension disbursement between the two wives, disclosure would impact the hearing in the court - CIC: it is third party personal information & no public interest is involved, appeal dismissed

ORDER

Information sought:

The appellant had sought the information in relation to sanctioning pension to Sri Kalidas Vaingankar.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing :

The appellant Shri Vishal Naik was present. Four 2nd appeals filed together on 20/05/2013. They are being heard together with the consensus of Appellant and Respondent. The Appellant stated that the information sought by him has been denied on two counts, first being that this is third party information and secondly that the case is subjudice. The Appellant argued that the information referred as the personal information has arisen out of administrative procedure and therefore, cannot be considered as third party information. Secondly, even if the matter is sub – judice, unless the court has prohibited furnishing the information, it can be furnished. The Respondent stated that after receiving the notice on 27th January, they have filed a written submission to CIC by speed post. The Respondent stated that the matter on which the information is sought relates to a pension dispute of an exemployee who had two wives. There is no public interest involved in the issue since the matter relates to personal information of third party. On this ground, the information has not been furnished. Further, the matter is being heard in various courts on the issue of pension disbursement between the two wives and therefore, the information on file nothings etc. would impact the hearing in the court. In May 2012 one of the parties of dispute Ms. Deepa Wayankar had filed an appeal before the Commission which had allowed personal inspection of records. However, the appellant in that case, did not appear so far, for inspection of record. The appellant again argued that the information sought for is purely in public interest and any RTI application filed, had to be respond to. It is therefore, essential that the information may be provided to him. The appellant made a case that while public interest can be invoked for replies there is no such limitation on the question and section 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; can be invoked only when the information expressly forbidden by Court of Law.

Decision:

The appellant has not been able to justify the public interest involved in seeking information regarding pensionary benefits etc. pertaining to a deceased employee. The Commission upholds the view of the Public Authority that the information sought for is third party information and has been withheld justifiably by invoking Section 8(1) (j). The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Yashovardhan Azad)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Vishal Naik v. Acctt.  Mormugao Port Trust in F. No.CIC/SS/A/2013/901843YA F.No. CIC/SS/A/2013/901844YA, F.No. CIC/SS/A/2013/901845YA F. No. CIC/SS/A/2013/901910YA