The family details of appellant’s late father as mentioned in his service book, reasons for some of the amount was paid to another daughter etc. were denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Respondent: dues paid to his nominee who is her second wife - CIC: denial upheld
13 Feb, 2015Information sought:-
The appellant through his RTI application having 09 queries spread over 03 pages had sought information related to her father Late Mr. Shitla Prasad Shrivastava was working as Head TM and died on 13/01/2010. She has three elder sisters, who are married now and hence after the death of her mother she is the only dependent. Through this RTI application she wants to know the family details her late father has mentioned in his service book, reasons for some of the amount was paid to another daughter and not to her and various other queries related to payment and records and other related information.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Lalit Mohan Srivastava appellant’s representative through VC
Respondent: Mr. S S Pandit CPIO’s representative through VC
The appellant’s representative stated that the respondents have denied information on para 2 to 6 of RTI application dated 20/8/2013 on the grounds that it is personal information related to third party. He pointed out that Ms. Ruby Srivastava is the unmarried daughter of late Mr. Shitla Prasad Srivastava and has a right to obtain the information. The CPIO’s representative submitted that the terminal dues of late Shitla Prasad Srivastava have been paid to his nominee Mrs. Shashi Bala Srivastava (his 2nd wife) and the matter is presently before the Court. He reiterated that the information sought is exempt 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. The appellant’s representative pointed out that as on the date of the respondent’s reply no case was pending in any court.
Decision notice:
The basic protection afforded by virtue of exemption from disclosure enacted 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 cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’. The appellant’s representative has pleaded that Ms. Ruby Srivastava is the unmarried daughter of late Mr. S P Srivastava and has a right to seek the information. The appropriate remedy for her would be to apply to the concerned Court for summoning the records of the respondent but seeking such information under the provisions of Right to Information Act is certainly not an appropriate relief. In the matter at hand the appellant’s representative has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose. Hence, the decision of the respondent not to disclose the information cannot be interfered with. The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Ruby Srivastava v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000031/6487