PIO: He has assumed charge only recently and has not been able to locate the records related to the instant RTI Application - Appellant: No reply received - CIC: Online RTI portal shows the online RTI application and reply; Show cause notice issued to PIO
15 Mar, 2023Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.09.2021 seeking the following information:
“I filing this application to NOTARY SECTION of Law & Justice department. I want one copy of an application & Renewal of Notary and all enclosure attached with this application of about the APPOINTMENT & RENEWAL of Notary of Government of India in year 2011 & 2016 respectively of SARITA NARAYANRAO SOLUNKE whose registration number is 9023 for AURANGABAD MAHARASHTRA District. The information needed by speed post as well as by email address provided in this application.”
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.10.2021. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Sunil through video conference.
Respondent: Dr. Amit Tyagi, Deputy Legal Advisor & CPIO present through intravideo conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant stated that till date no reply has been received from the CPIO in the matter.
The CPIO submitted that he has assumed charge only recently and has not been able to locate the records related to the instant RTI Application. He further submitted that the notary cell was being shifted at the time from Shastri Bhawan and the records are therefore lying scattered and is in the process of being digitised. He further sought for one more opportunity to find out the availability of the records.
Decision:
The Commission is unnerved at the absurdity of the submission of the CPIO in as much as he ignored the fact that the RTI Application under reference was filed on the online RTI portal vide Registration No. JUSTC/R/E/21/02460, and there is no question of not being able to trace the same from the physical records. Further, a simple access to the online RTI portal suggests that a reply was provided therein vide Registration No. MOLAW/R/T/21/00369 (upon online transfer from DoJ on 20.09.2021) under the name of the same CPIO i.e by Dr. Amit Tyagi, Deputy Legal Advisor & CPIO (Notary Cell) on 16.03.2022 as under:
“The documents/ information sought by you contains the personal information of Shri Benny M. Kalan which comes within the domain of third-party information in terms of section 11(I) of RTI Act, 2005. The same may not be provided under the provision of aforesaid Act. The Hon’ble CIC in its order dated 31.01.2022 has also advised to follow due process of law by seeking the consent of the third party as laid down in section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 before parting with their personal information. The copy of above said order is enclosed for your reference.”
The averred reply of 16.03.2022 also makes it clear that Dr. Amit Tyagi, Deputy Legal Advisor & CPIO has been the incumbent CPIO for close to a year now, yet, he submitted before the bench that he has assumed the charge only recently which amounts to misleading the bench.
Now, it is beyond comprehension as to why the Appellant has also denied receipt of any reply to the RTI Application when the said reply is readily available on the RTI online portal.
The Commission takes grave exception to the fact that both the parties have misrepresented the facts of the case and have caused a gross disregard to the hearing proceedings.
As an incumbent CPIO and being a public official, Dr. Amit Tyagi, Deputy Legal Advisor & CPIO is answerable for the gross misrepresentation of facts before the bench and is therefore directed to send a proper written explanation on both the above-mentioned counts to the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Any failure on the part of Dr. Amit Tyagi, Deputy Legal Advisor & CPIO in this regard may compel the Commission to proceed against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Further, as for the information sought for in the RTI Application, no relief is permissible as the same pertains to the personal information of a third party and stands duly 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. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is further drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged 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 RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”
The Appellant and the Rep. of the Appellant are also cautioned against putting forth misleading and false information before the Commission in the future.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Balaji Bhagat v. Department of Legal Affairs, File No : CIC/DOLAF/A/2022/612693, Date of Decision : 07/02/2023