Appellant sought to know the local address of an employee claiming that the allotment of house was based on wrong declaration - CIC: Appellant’s allegation cannot be ascertained in a fool-proof method; Provide the address in larger public interest
18 Jul, 2018
Information sought:
The Appellant sought to know the local address of one Mr. Shailendra Kumar as contained in his letter dated 08.10.2014 and his local address as per present records of the Respondent office. He also sought details of approved leaves of the said person.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present and assisted by K.S. Bhatia in person.
Respondent: Sudama Yadav, Civilian Security Officer, Rep of CPIO, 508 Army Base Wksp, Fort Allahabad present through VC.
Appellant stated that he has not received any reply from the CPIO. He further stated that the person concerned regarding whom information has been sought has taken an allotment under State Govt. Scheme by misrepresenting facts.
Rep. of CPIO submitted that a revised reply denying the information 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. after invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act was sent on 21.06.2016. He also clarified that the person under reference is working on the post of MATE in their office.
Decision
Commission observes that the subject matter of RTI Application is pertaining to allotment of house under State Govt. Scheme purportedly based on wrong declaration by a Govt. employee.
Commission although accepts the denial of information 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, however, Appellant’s contentions cannot be completely disregarded. The sustainability of Appellant’s allegation regarding misrepresentation of facts by a Govt. employee cannot be ascertained in a fool-proof manner, yet in the circumstances; limited disclosure is allowed in view of the prima-facie larger public interest. CPIO is directed to provide the local address of Shailendra Kumar, MATE as available in official records to the Appellant within 15 days of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Gurudayal Singh Bhatia v. 508 Army Base Wksp in File No. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/109275/SD, Date of Decision:30/08/2017