|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/CORPB/A/2017/164860||07 Jan, 2019||Narendra Bahadur Singh Vs. CPIO, Corporation Bank
The appellant requested information relating to bank account details, Mobile number, and whether the said account is a Savings or Current account, or is it held jointly.
The respondent submitted that the appellant’s RTI application dated 03.06.2017 was received by the Bank on 07.06.2017. The respondent further informed that the appellant is not a signatory to the account in respect of which the information has been sought by him. Subsequently, the CPIO vide reply dated 03.07.2017 informed the appellant that the information sought by him pertains to the account of a third party, which is held by the Bank in a fiduciary capacity. Moreover, it also contains personal information of the third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
The above stand taken by the respondent has been upheld by the CIC
|2||CIC/SCRLS/A/2017/112395/SD||07 Jan, 2019||Noorjahan Begum Vs. CPIO, Central Railway, General Manager’s, Secundrabad
The Appellant sought information regarding Mohammed Yahya working as Technician - III in C & W Mechanical, SCR in terms of copy of his pay slip for the month of April, 2016, copy of his service book along with details of his nominee and marriage, whether he has disclosed any details of criminal cases registered against him etc.
Appellant stated that she is pursuing her alimony case against her estranged husband and wants to know the details of his salary emoluments.
CPIO submitted that information sought has been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the third party refused to give his consent to disclose the information sought in the RTI Application.
Commission observes that although no infirmity lies in the CPIO reply, however, the total emoluments of the concerned railway employee under reference should have been disclosed as part of suo-motu disclosure under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act.
In view of this, Respondent No. 2 is directed to provide the total emoluments of the concerned railway employee for the month of April 2016 to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent by Respondent No.2 to the Commission.
|3||CIC/DSLSA/A/2017/133231/HCDEL||07 Jan, 2019||Sunita Jha Vs. CPIO, Delhi High Court Legal, Service Committee, Delhi High Court, New Delhi
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC), Delhi High Court (DHC), New Delhi seeking information on two points, pertaining to applicants granted free legal service by DHCLSC, including, inter-alia (i) complete case-wise details of each 296 applications as stated in an earlier RTI reply with respect to grant of free legal service, and (ii) particulars related to monetary assistance given to each of the 296 applicants along with certified copies of all 296 applications.
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that the information sought by the appellant relates to personal information of third parties i.e. the 296 applicants, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
|4||CIC/DSHIP/A/2017/119776||11 Jul, 2018||S P Sinha Vs APIO Ministry of Shipping
ISSUE : The appellant sought information relating to appointment letters for the last 15 years in respect of Hindi Typists, Stenographer, promotion orders of Hindi Typist for the last 15 years and copy of DPC minutes and noting portions of the concerned promotion files of Mercantile Marine Deptt, Mumbai and other related information.
Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO he filed appeal before the CIC.
DECISION :After scrutiny of the reply given by the CPIO the CIC gave the following directions :
Section 11(1) procedure to be applied in third party information requests.
Fix a joint inspection of the relevant records on a mutually convenient date, time and place in respect of voluminous records and give the requested information under section 7(6) of the Act free of cost.
|5||CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/114146, CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/112849, CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/124953||04 Jul, 2018||Hans Raj Chugh Vs DDA
ISSUE :Appellant had requested for the action taken report with reference to a show cause notice issued to a third party. The CPIO rejected the request on the ground that the third party had stated specifically by name not to provide the information.
DECISION : After perusing the relevant records the CIC directed the CPIO to provide the complete status report to the appellant as the Commission found that the objection of the third party was not legally tenable considering that information sought was not personal in nature. Thus the reply of the PIO and the FAA was set aside.
|6||CIC/SBIND/A/2017/103744||19 Apr, 2018||Ashok Pandit Vs CPIO, SBI, Khagaria, Bihar
ISSUE : The applicant sought the total number of KCC loans sanctioned from 5/8/16 till date along with the certified copy of the Land Possession Certificate and land receipts. No information was provided by the CPIO.
DECISION : Total number of KCC loans sanctioned for the period requested for to be given. However, LPC and land receipts are personal information of the third parties i.e the borrowers which is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity the disclosure of which is exempted under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act,2005.
|7||CIC/NRAIL/A/2017/145203||05 Dec, 2017||Madhu Vs DRM Office, Northern Railway
ISSUE : The appellant applied for a copy of her husband’s caste certificate to enable her to apply for caste certificate for her daughter. The information was not supplied under section 8(1)(j).
DECISION : The Commission directed the CPIO to initiate procedure under section 11(1) of the RTI Act,2005 as the appellant did not submit any cogent reason to demonstrate the involvement of a larger public interest in the case.
|8||CIC/POSTS/A/2017/304586||31 Jul, 2017||Malabika Dey Vs. PIO, Department of Posts
The appellant sought copies of list of KVP certificate lying in the name of the appellant’s deceased husband Late Rubin Dey, Rabin Kumar Dey or Rabindra Nath Dey; name of the nominees of the appellant’s husband, copies of certificate no. 52171, 52172, 52173, 52174 and 52175 dated 08.12.2008. CPIO replied on 20.02.2016 and provided the name of the nominee. FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and stated that the information provided is sufficient. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has approached the commission The officer stated that the appellant was supplied with the information about her husband’s account details along with all joint-holding accounts details but the copy of certificate for purchasing the NSC was not provided. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the copy of certificate for purchasing NCS to the appellant, within 15 days from this date. Disposed of.
|9||CIC/BSNLD/A/2016/298476||24 Jul, 2017||Sh.Balakrma Tanwar Vs.CPIO, TDM, BSNL, Khandva Distt.
The appellant filed RTI application dated 24.05.2016 seeking certified copy of 1st and 2nd page of service book of Shri Ramnarayan S/o Genda Lal.; certified copy of his academic certificates; copy of domicile certificate etc. CIC directed the CPIO to provide to the appellant information viz. copy of service book of Shri Ramnarayan within 15 days of receipt of this order. The personal information for example, permanent address, educational qualification and details of family shall be deleted from the service book and rest of the information shall be provided.
|10||CIC/BS/A/2016/900115||30 Mar, 2017||Mr. Yugandhar Reddy Kadiveti Vs. Central Public Information Officer Asstt. GM (Admn./Mktg.) BSNL, Kadapa
The appellant filed RTI application dated 09.03.2015 seeking information on 5 points regarding LTC availed by Sri M Eswara Reddy, DE (Rtd.) BSNL. CPIO stated that “information sought by him is related to third party information, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of third person and it is also not associated with any public activity or interest. The same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005”. CIC upheld the decision of CPIO.
|11||CIC/BS/C/2015/000108||24 Mar, 2017||Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Haryana Vs. Central Public Information Officer Supdt., M/o. Comm. & I.T.,, Gurgaon.
The respondent stated that, they have informed the complainant that the information sought by him is related to third party information. The respondent further stated that they have approached third parties but they have refused to provide the information to the complainant. The same has been informed to the complainant. CIC upheld the decision of CPIO.
|12||CIC/BS/A/2015/001922 CIC/BS/A/2015/001978 CIC/BS/A/2015/001979 CIC/BS/A/2015/001980 CIC/BS/A/2015/001981||24 Mar, 2017||Rohit Sabharwal, Kundan Bhawan, Ludhiana Vs. Central Public Information Officer, BSNL, Chandigarh
The CPIO stated that in terms of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. [SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012, judgment dated 3 October, 2012] copy of the vigilance files and the enquiry report which is not related to the appellant cannot be given. CIC upheld the decision of the CPIO.
|13||CIC/MP/A/2016/001646||14 Dec, 2016||Kishan Gopal vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ajmer
Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the appellant was not connected with the policy in any way and the information sought by him, was held in trust by the LIC for the policy holder/nominee and pertained to third party, it could not be provided to him u/ s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. No larger public interest was also involved in the matter.
|14||CIC/MP/A/2016/001548||28 Nov, 2016||Kazi Abdul Shafi vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai
Section 8(1) (e) Fiduciary Relationship. The appellant sought a copy Of the clarification provided by an agent Of the LIC of India in his case.
The Commission held that as far as the copy of the clarification was concerned, the clarification was sought by the LIC, the employer, from their agent and it was a matter between the LIC and their agent and cannot be provided the appellant, who is a third party in this case
|15||CIC/CC/A/2015/002288-SA||19 Sep, 2016||Ashutosh Tiwari Vs. NIT
Section 11(I) Third Party Information the Commission held that the appellant stated that he wanted to know the diagnostic details about his father, to provide him better treatment as he was suffering from past 27 months. The CPIO to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for non-application of mind, non-compliance with the provisions of section 11 (I) of the RTI Act, etc., within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directed the public authority to explain why compensation should not be granted to the appellant for harassing him.