CIC finds no infirmity in the initial reply of the PIO; Appellant in her RTI application and first appeal has nowhere mentioned that the information is related to her husband who has no objection; Re-examine the RTI application and give information
19 Aug, 2024
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05-09-2022 seeking the following information:
“a) Report submitted by Sri Alok Kumar Sahu, SSE/RRD-PSI/KUR to DEE/TRD/KUR or Sr.DEE/TRD/KUR regarding "Careless in nature and not dependable for any official work" as per Sr.DEE office letter No. TRD/KUR/E- II/2020/1827 dated: 25.08.2020.
b) Xerox copy of inquiry report "Scolding to Ganeswar Behera, Ex. SSE/RRD/KUR and Smt Anuradha Barik, Tech-II/RRD/KUR by Sri Partha Sarathi Routaray, helper- II/RRD/KUR.”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13-09-2022 stating as under:
“As per your request under reference under RTI Act.05, it is to inform that the information sought by the applicant is enclosed herewith vide Sr. DEE(TRD)/ KUR's Lr. No. TRD/KUR/E-45/RTI/2022/2349 Dt.09.09.2022 for reference.”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09-09-2022 stating as under:
“Sri Ganeswar Behera has been provided with all the relevant document. Hence, being spouse of Sri Behera, Smt. Behera may collect it from him. Moreover, the information cannot be provided under section 8(j) of the RTI Act-2005 as the required information relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08-10-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 27-10-2022, held as under:-
“As the Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005 the undersigned has gone through your aforesaid appeal along with its relevant case files and found that the information provided by CPIO/KUR against your original RTI application is proper and adequate. The IPO (55F 768506 & 55F 768507) attached with your appeal, is returned herewith as the same are not required for preferring any appeal before the undersigned.
This dispose of the aforesaid appeal.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference along with third party i.e. her husband Shri Ganeswar Behera.
Respondent: Shri Abanikant Barida, Sr. DPO present through Video- Conference.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date no information was provided to her by the Respondent. The Appellant further submitted that she has sought information related to her husband but despite the fact no information was provided to her.
Shri Ganeswar Behera is present in the hearing along with the Appellant and upon being queried by the Commission, he has given his ‘no objection’ to the Public Authority if the information related to him is parted with the Appellant.
The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that the CPIO has categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by her is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure 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.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that the information was wrongly denied to her by the Respondent.
The Commission observes that the Respondent in his response dated 09.09.2022 has invoked 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 denying the information. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the initial reply of the CPIO, as the Appellant in her RTI application and first appeal has nowhere mentioned that the information sought is related to her husband and Shri Ganeswar Behera has no objection in parting his information to his wife i.e. Appellant.
However, now at the stage of second appeal, the Appellant and the third party i.e. Shri Ganeswar Behera appeared together and he has given his ‘no objection’ in parting with his information to the Appellant.
In light of the above observations, the Respondent is directed to re-examine the RTI application dated 05.09.2022 of the Appellant and give information to the Appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act and as per the documents available on record, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order even if the same was supplied to the husband of Appellant on earlier occasion.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Rosalini Behera v. East Coast Railway, CIC/ECRBH/A/2023/107864; Date of Decision : 12-04-2024