ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Thu, Aug 22, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Third Party Information
Supreme Court(Third Party Information)/ High Courts(Third Party Information)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
16 CIC/MP/A/2016/001548
(45.50 kB) pdf icon
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
17 CIC/CC/A/2015/002288-SA
(63.56 kB) pdf icon
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.
18 CIC/RM/A/2014/000535DP
(94.98 kB) pdf icon
26 Apr, 2016 Manisha Bhaskar Ahluwalia vs IHQ of MOD (Army), New Delhi

Section 11 Third Party Information

The Commission held that the details of moveable and immoveable property of Supreme Court Judges is available on the website of the Apex Court. Conduct Rules for top Government officials belonging to All India Services and Central Services stipulates annual submission of details of immoveable property which is put on the official website of the department.

The CPIO cannot reject the request of the appellant for information on moveable and immovable property of her husband being third party information under section 11(1) and personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The Appellant is asking for information under RTI for fighting maintenance case for herself and her minor daughter in Civil Court. It will not be justified to deny her the information by keeping it under the exemption clause of the RTI Act. If justice is denied to the appellant it would not only harm her interests but society at large, In larger public interest disclosure of information is ordered.
19 CIC/BS/A/2014/001310/7739
(0 bytes) pdf icon
29 May, 2015 B. N. Singh Vs. CPIO & Assistant Director, ESIC

The appellant filed sought various information regarding a particular contractor. The PIO denied the information as it is personal in nature, relates to third party and if disclosed would cause unwanted invasion of his privacy and will also harm his competitive position and no public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to the disclosure.
The Commission held that the Information relating to the affairs of a private entity the disclosure of which can possibly have an adverse effect on the competitive position of the entity, is exempt under section 8(l)(d) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information relating to individuals and unincorporated entities. The basic protection from disclosure afforded by virtue of these statutory exemptions cannot be lifted or disturbed unléss the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'.
20 CIC/SA/A/2014/001377
(207.57 kB) pdf icon
25 Mar, 2015 Devidayal Sharma Vs. PIO, O/o Dy. Controller

The appellant sought to know the GPF statements for the year 1996-1997 ad 1997-98 of GPF Account of one Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik. The CPIO furnished some information without seeking third party approval.

The Commission held that it is surprised to know how CPIO had given personal information of Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik without following procedure of section 11 of the RTI Act. He should have taken consent of Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik before disclosing the information. The Commission, therefore, directed the PIO to show cause why maximum penalty could not be imposed against him for disclosing personal information violating the procedure described by RTI Act.
21 CIC/MP/A/2014/000930
(114.73 kB) pdf icon
17 Mar, 2015 Ravindra Nath Tripathy Vs. State Bank of Inida, Patna

The appellant sought information about certain pension account, which the CPIO denied treating the same as third party information. The FAA concurred with the decision of the CPIO. The appellant stated that the requested information related to his uncle who had expired and was issueless.

The CIC held that the appellant is entitled for information in case he was nominated by his uncle or had produced succession certificate to the respondents, however the information cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of sections 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act as he is neither the nominee nor he produced any succession certificate in his favour. The decision of respondents was upheld.
22 CIC/YA/A/2014/000517
(103.29 kB) pdf icon
16 Mar, 2015 D.P Majhi Vs. CPIO, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways

The Appellant sought information regarding irregularities of recruitment to the post of DGM (tech), copy of inquiry report and copies of communications made with the CVC and the replies received. The PIO informed that the matter is exempt from disclosure under sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that the information was related to him, so the same should have been provided to him The CIC held that the file notings are open and not fiduciary or personal in nature. The respondent’s contention is not correct i.e. the file noting are internal communication and not accessible under the RTI Act.

The commission directed the respondents to provide the information to the appellant, to the extent not already provided in relation to his RTI application, after severing names of officers who wrote the notes or made entries in the concerned files.
23 CIC/MP/A/2014/001008
(189.42 kB) pdf icon
16 Mar, 2015 Avinash Prabhakar Kaplay Vs. LIC of India, Nagpur

The appellant sought copy of policy proposal form, documents submitted for death claim and any change in nomination on the life of particular person. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, on the basis of this being a third party information.

The commission upheld the decision of the CPIO.
24 CIC/BS/A/2014/000818 CIC/BS/A/2014/001164
(51.56 kB) pdf icon
01 Jan, 2015 K.S. Jain Vs. CPIO, BSNL

The appellant who was also complainant against the corruption of an officer sought copies of final orders in the disciplinary case concluded.

CIC held that the information sought by the complaint/appellant relates to a third party and the action taken by the Department is information of personal nature and as no larger public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant, exempt from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.
25 CIC/DS/A/2013/001939
(88.14 kB) pdf icon
11 Dec, 2013 Sub. Major Pal. Singh vs Department of Food & Supplies, Chandigarh

Section 11 — Third Party Information —
The Commission held that section 11 is not one of the exemption—clauses under the RTI Act. The CPIO to supply policy for issue of ration cards to the appellant with specific information that those persons to whom ration cards were issued have fulfilled all criteria prescribed in the policy.

The Commission further directed the competent authority to appoint only Gazetted officer as PIO.
26 CIC/LS/A/2012/900254/BS/1739
(39.50 kB) pdf icon
22 Jan, 2013 Emam Najir Mirza vs CPIO & DGM(Admn.) BSNL Maharashtra

The appellant filed RTI application and sought incoming, outgoing and missed call details of mobile numbers of third party- the PIO has denied the information under RTI Act-
The Commission held that BSNL is bound to protect the confidentiality of its subscribers and information relating to call details of a subscriber cannot be disclosed to third party(s) being exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest in such disclosure.
27 CIC/SM/A/2011/002022/VS/01269
(54.15 kB) pdf icon
07 Nov, 2012 Shri Rajendra Jhalani vs Public Information Officer Union Bank of India

Appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO seeking a copy of the Will, duly certified by the bank, made by his late mother in respect of a joint property, to enable him to submit the same in a court of law for division of his mother's share. The FAA forwarded a copy of CPIO's reply to the appellant along with a copy of letter written to the third party to seek his consent for disclosure of information. CIC upheld the decision of FAA. Section 8(1)(e) Section 11
28 CIC/LS/A/2011/003920/BS/0423
(243.53 kB) pdf icon
06 Jul, 2012 Mr. Saumil Singh vs CPIO DOEACC Society Ministry of Communication and I.T.

The appellant sought copies of ACR’s of other employees of the organisation – the information was denied by the CPIO under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act Section 8(1)(j)
29 CIC/LS/A/2011/003384
(41.51 kB) pdf icon
06 Jul, 2012 K V.R.K Raju Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Section 11 - Third Party Information
The FAA came to the conclusion that the tender details submitted by the bidders and correspondences with them are third party information which would harm their competitive position. Such information is covered u/s 8(I)(d). However, the contracts entered into after conclusion of the tendering process cannot be considered as confidential. Such information is not covered u/s 8 (1) (d). Similarly, information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has not been treated as confidential by that third party may be disclosed. Information treated as confidential by that third party may be disclosed after giving a written notice to such third party as per section 11, if the public interest in disclosure out weights in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party — the Commission upheld the decision of the Appellant Authority for the reason stated by the Appellate Authority.
30 CIC/SG/A/2012/001433/19367
(55.44 kB) pdf icon
27 Jun, 2012 Mr. G.R Khare vs Mr. Uday Navalkar PIO & Dy. Zonal Manager Bank of India

Information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 – the appellant wanted the copy of the termination letter dated 06.06.1986 through which clerk Johan Aadila was suspended. Section 6 and 11
Total Case uploaded: 65