PIO: Information asked regarding the salary/ payment audit report and objection of auditor on the pay scale of supervisory staff of Cantonment Board contains the disclosure of information of individuals - CIC: Denial of information u/s 8(1)(e) upheld

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Copy of salary/payment audit report and objections of Auditors over the pay scale of supervisory staff of Cantonment Board.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO did not provide the desired information 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. 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.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant stated that information sought cannot be denied under Sec. 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. 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. as the Cantonment Board is a public office and information held with them is public information.

The respondent telephonically reiterated the submissions given in the reply.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 23.08.2019 had replied that the information asked regarding the salary/ payment audit report and objection of auditor on the pay scale of supervisory staff of Cantonment Board contains the disclosure of information of individuals and hence cannot be provided as per the provision of Sec 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. 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 read with Sec 10.

The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and had filed a first appeal. The FAA vide order dated 16.09.2019 reiterated the CPIO’s reply dated 23.08.2019 and further stated that legal advise from the Legal Advisor in respect of the same has also been sought. The Legal Advisor vide letter dated 14.09.2019 has conveyed that the information asked for has been given in fiduciary capacity and exempted from disclosure as per the provisions of Sec 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; of the RTI Act.

Keeping in view the above facts, the second appeal of the appellant was examined and it was noted that the appellant had contested the reply given to him. He mentioned in his second appeal that he is aggrieved by the ignorant behaviour and intentional and deliberate prolonging and avoidance from providing the proper information within the stipulated time and irresponsible behaviour of CPIO and FAA.

From the submissions made in the reply of the CPIO and reiterated thereafter, the Commission accepts the reply and the exemptions clauses quoted as being appropriate to this case.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, no further action is warranted.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mohammed Idris Ibrahim v. Cantonment Board Aurangabad in File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2019/652751+ CIC/DODEF/A/2019/652752, Date of Decision: 17/03/2021