During the hearing the Respondent informed the Commission that information cannot be provided
u/s8(1)(h) to the Appellant since the DAR proceedings against Mr. Chakraborty are ongoing. Be that
as it may, the Commission while relying upon the decision pronounced by the Supreme Court of
India in SLP (Civil) no.27734 of 2012 (@CC 154781/2012) holds that the information sought by theAppellant are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act and hence is not disclosable.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/002470
Heard through Video Conference
Date of Hearing : February 22, 2013.
Date of Decision : February 22, 2013.
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Subhasish Chakraborty
S/o Late Brajendralal Chakraborty
244, Rahara Uttarpara
PO Rahara, Distt 24 Pgs,
Kolkata.
Applicant was present.
Respondent(s)
Eastern Railway
O/o the Dy.CVO (E) & PIO
Eastern Railway
Kolkta.
Representative : Shri Abhay Sharma, Dy.CVO/PIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/002470
ORDER
Background.
1. The RTI Application dated 18.6.11 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Eastern Railway,
Kolkata seeking information against 10 points with respect to an enquiry that was conducted against
one Mr. S Chakraborty, Inspector (RPF) E.Railway including names of officials who had conducted
the enquiry. The PIO replied on 7.7.11 denying the information against points 1 and 2 u/s 8(1)(g) &
8(1)(h) and points 3 to 10 u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act since the enquiry was still going on . Being
dissatisfied with this reply the Applicant filed his first appeal on 18.9.11 seeking the information once
again. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal on 16.1.12 directing the Dy.CVO, E.Railway
to provide a detailed response to the Appellant within one month. Thereafter the Appellant filed his
second appeal before the Commission.
Decision
2. During the hearing the Respondent informed the Commission that information cannot be provided
u/s8(1)(h) to the Appellant since the DAR proceedings against Mr. Chakraborty are ongoing. Be that
as it may, the Commission while relying upon the decision pronounced by the Supreme Court of
India in SLP (Civil) no.27734 of 2012 (@CC 154781/2012) holds that the information sought by theAppellant are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act and hence is not disclosable.
3. The appeal is rejected and the case directed to be closed.
REad More here;
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012
(@ CC 14781/2012)
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande .. Petitioner
Versus
Cen. Information Commr. & Ors. .. Respondents
We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the
details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the
third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc.
are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an
organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer
and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall
under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand,
the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that
individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority
is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of
such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner
cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are
"personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause
(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public
interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public
interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would
cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded
in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public
interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this
special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed
No comments:
Post a Comment