Information in respect of a Cashier such as, certified copies of nominations as per service records, current residential address, his family record & his mobile number were sought - CIC: Denial u/s 8(1)(j) upheld as no larger public interest involved

ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri Nandkishore S. Dhakite, submitted RTI application dated 23.07.2013 Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Mysore, Delhi seeking information in respect of Shri Rewalnath V. Parate, Cashier posted at SBM, Bhopal, certified copies of nominations as per service records, current residential address at Bhopal, his family record and his mobile number.

2. The CPIO, SBM, Delhi vide letter dated nil provided information as per available records. However, the CPIO advised the appellant to disclose his relationship with the person whose information was being sought information sought. In response to CPIO’s letter the appellant vide letter dated 10.9.2013 informed the CPIO that he was the brother in law of Shri Parate from his first wife. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 18.10.2013 before the first appellate authority. In response to appellant’s first appeal the CPIO vide letter dated 25.10.2013 provided the residential address of Shri Parate along with the dependent family members and the mobile number to the appellant.

3. Not satisfied with the information already provided, the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant did not attend the hearing inspite of a written notice having been sent to him. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant stated that the respondents had not provided certified copies of nominations made by Shri Parate. The respondents stated that they had provided the names and relationship in the nominations made by Shri Parate along with his residential address, mobile number.

5. The Commission holds that the particulars of nominations filed by an employee and other personal information cannot be disclosed under the provisions of 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 being third party information. There have been numerous decisions of the Commission on these issues. With regard to the disclosure of information regarding GPF details and the nomination given by an employee to this effect, the Commission in its order dated 26.09.2007 in case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00437 in the matter of Alka Srivastava Vs. Customs & Central Excise had held, “All information which the appellant had asked for pertained to matters which are exclusive to the third-party, who as a public employee, has been depositing certain funds in his GPF account from his personal earnings and has been enjoying certain privileges such as LTC, access to CGHS health care, selecting his nominee for GP, etc. These are all his exclusive domain and there is no reason why another person, even if that person is his estranged wife, be allowed access to that information over the objection of the third-party”. Similarly, The High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 1.7.2009 in the matter of Vijay Prakash Vs. UOI and Ors [WP(C) 803/2009] held “As discussed earlier, the ‘public interest’ argument of the petitioner is premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant, he is in litigation with her, and requires information, - in the course of a private dispute – to establish the truth of his allegations. The CIC has held that there is no public interest element in the disclosure of such information, in the possession of the information provider, i.e. the Indian Air Force. This Court concurs with the view, on an application of the principles discussed. The petitioner has, not been able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’: the litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted 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. cannot be lifted or disturbed.” The respondents have, however, already provided the particulars of the nominations to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Nandkishore S. Dhakite v. State Bank of Mysore in Appeal: No.CIC/MP/A/2014/000403