Information regarding the monetary benefits payable to the heirs of late Kalavati were denied u/s 8(1)(j) claiming that as per her service book, there is one nominee & 3 other family members; the appellant’s name does not figure in it - CIC: denial upheld
7 Sep, 2014Information sought: The appellant has sought the following information:-
1. Information regarding the monetary benefits of declared Kalawati W/o Natha Mopalwar who serving At Telephone Bhawan Tamsa Tq. Hadgaon Dist. Nanded.
2. Details of monetary benefits which have been received by legal hair of deceased Kalawati W/o Natha Mopalwar.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not given satisfactory information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. D G Sheikh CPIO through VC M: 09423136977
The CPIO stated that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application dated 08/02/2013 regarding the monetary benefits payable to the heirs of late Kalavati cannot be provided as he is a third party. He further stated that as per the service book of the late employee there is one nominee and 3 other family members have been named but the appellant’s name does not figure in the list. The CPIO claimed exemption 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 is not present for canvassing his case/contesting the CPIO’s submissions.
Decision notice:
The information sought by the appellant relates to a third party and 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 as no public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to justify its disclosure. The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Shankar v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001554/5774