ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Tue, Oct 15, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Third Party Information
Supreme Court(Third Party Information)/ High Courts(Third Party Information)
31 CIC/LS/A/2011/003406/BS/0242 Adjunct
(55.37 KB) pdf icon
19 Jun, 2012 Suresh Chandra v Department of Post, Etah, U.P.

Section 11 — Third Party Information
The Commission held that Section 11 of the RTI Act prescribes a procedure to be followed in case of third party information and cannot be used as an exemption for non-disclosure. Further, the FAA claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act for non-disclosure of the information( FAA stated
that since an enquiry is going on u/s 10 against Mr. Sunil Kumar and u/s
14 against Mr. Komal Singh), the information cannot be furnished u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, however, he has not been able to establish how the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information. The Commission directed the PIO to provide correct and complete information to the appellant along-with compliance report to the Commission
32 CIC/SG/A/2012/000714/19109
(66.69 KB) pdf icon
28 May, 2012 J. S. Gaba Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi

Section 11 — Third Party Information
The Commission held that the denial of information has to be justified in terms of section 8(1) of the Act. Neither the third party nor the PIO has been able to justify the denial of information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought information about a federation which is not an individual and hence cannot have personal information which would qualify for protection under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
33 CIC/LS/A/2011/003406/BS/0242
(53.27 KB) pdf icon
24 May, 2012 Suresh Chandra v Department of Post, Etah, UP

Section 11 — Third Party Information
The Commission held that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process.
34 CIC/AD/A/2012/000874
(307.67 KB) pdf icon
10 May, 2012 Shri S.K. Sharma vs Centre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS) Chanakyapuri

The Commission held that the information sought by the Appellant is purely ‘personal’ to third party; which, if allowed to be disclosed, would indeed cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of third party, especially in view of the fact that the third party objected to disclosure of the said information. Further, the Appellant has not proved (with documentary evidence) any ‘larger public interest’ which would warrant the disclosure of the information. Section 8(1)(j)
35 CIC/AD/C/2012/000614
(310.50 KB) pdf icon
20 Apr, 2012 Sunita VS. New Delhi Municipal Council, New Delhi

Section 11 – Third party Information
The appellant sought the details of GPF of her husband from the PIO of the Public Authority – the Commission held that the Appellant in this case is the legally married wife of the third party and in view of the submission of the appellant that her husband has been refusing to pay her any maintenance allowance although she still remains his wife, directed the PIO to provide the required information to the appellant by 20 May, 2012.
36 CIC/SS/A/2012/000167
(209.14 KB) pdf icon
13 Apr, 2012 Ms. Nalini Singhal vs Air India

Fiduciary Relationship- Section 8(1)(j)- Personal information- the appellant had filed an application seeking seven queries in respect of Capt. PK Singhal (since retired). The Commission held that, the information sought for by the appellant is disclosable information, except on point No. 9 (v) & (vii) pertaining to PAN Number and Provident Fund/Retirement benefits. Section 8(1)(e)
37 CIC/SG/A/2012/000433/18345
(51.91 KB) pdf icon
11 Apr, 2012 Mr. M.A.Alvi vs Mr. A. K. Sengar Public Information Officer & RPO Ministry of External Affairs

The Appellant had sought information relating to his major daughter’s Passport Application - the PIO has sent the information to the daughter directly on the basis of the daughter’s application - the Commission held that anyone except the applicant is a third party and the PIO has invoked section 11 of the RTI Act correctly. Section 11
38 CIC/SM/A/2011/002810 & CIC/SM/C/2011/001444
(208.56 KB) pdf icon
11 Apr, 2012 Ms. Anju Negi vs CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

The appellant sought the copy of an attestation form furnished by Ms. Asha Negi in the Supreme Court of India at the time of joining its services. The Commission held that all the information any employee furnishes to the employer in fulfilment of mandatory obligations or by way of minimum eligibility conditions must be disclosed as such information, even if it contains personal details, cannot be classified as personal information. Section 8(1)(e)
39 CIC/AD/A/2012/000759
(211.85 KB) pdf icon
11 Apr, 2012 K.P. Singh Vs. Northern Railway, New Delhi

Section 11 – Third Party Information
The Commission held that the appellant is not the passenger in this case and that he is seeking details of passengers who had travelled against a certain PNR No. which is information related to third party. The Commission denied disclosure of information to the appellant since it is of the opinion that the disclosure has no relation with any public activity or interest and since the disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the third party.
40 CIC/DS/A/2011/001046
(206.27 KB) pdf icon
19 Mar, 2012 Rakesh Sharma Vs. SBI, Moradabad, Lucknow

Section 11 – Third party Information
The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, SBI, Moradabad seeking copies of the letters submitted by NBHC Ltd. Mumbai against pledging the stock of NBHC with SBI
The commission held that the appellant has not provided any larger public interest in disclosure of third party information. Accordingly upheld the order of the CPIO.
41 CIC/LS/A/2011/001326
(29.11 KB) pdf icon
07 Sep, 2011 R.K. Choudhary Vs BSNL, Mandsour

The appellant sought the call details of certain telephones numbers from the CPIO Dy. Narcotics Commissioner, Gwalior — the CPIO denied the information under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act – the telephone numbers installed in the office of the Dy Narcotics Commissioner. CIC held that, there is no harm if the details of the caIIs made from the above mentioned 03 telephone numbers to Chennai only are disclosed to the appellant.
42 CIC/SM/A/2010/001250
(205.90 KB) pdf icon
01 Sep, 2011 Smt. Neena vs CPIO, Canara Bank Nehru Place Delhi

The appellant had sought the photocopy of the attendance register of the Hauz Khas branch of the bank for the calendar year 1994 and some details about the house rent/lease rent paid to the staff of that branch during that year. The Commission did not agree with the decision of either the CPIO or the Appellate Authority in this case. The desired information is about the attendance register and the house rent paid to the staff, both in the nature of ordinary administrative information. There is no ground to withhold such information or, by no stretch of imagination, can this be described as personal information or information held in a fiduciary capacity.
43 CIC/SM/C/2011/000934
(136.97 KB) pdf icon
01 Sep, 2011 Ms. Mridula Ghai Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

The appellant sought attested copy of the ACRs of Ms. Mridula Ghai, RPFC-II considered for promotion to the post of RPFC-I — the CPIO refused to disclose the information on the ground that third party Ms. Mridula Ghai has expressed her objections — the FAA allowed the disclosure of information relying upon one of the decision of CIC rendered in File No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000464/12432 dated 18.05.2011. Full Bench of CIC held that the view taken by the Single Bench does not lay down the correct law. Suffice it to say that ACRs are personal to the officers concerned. Even as per the Supreme Court ruling in Dev Dutt's Case, the ACRs are liable to be disclosed only to the civil servants concerned. They are not liable to be disclosed to third party. Further, the government holds the officer's ACRs in fiduciary capacity. This information can be disclosed only in the larger public interest. The Single Bench has not demonstrated any larger public interest in passing the order under reference. The ACRs are personal to Ms. Ghai and are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
44 CIC/SS/A/2010/001146
(172.65 KB) pdf icon
30 Mar, 2011 Dr. S.L. Sisodia Vs. Central Sheep & Wool Research Instt

The appellant filed RTI-request dated 5.10.2010, seeking information on six RTI-queries pertaining to DPC held for merit promotion. The CPIO denied information to the appellant being ‘third party’ information.
CIC uphold the decision of the Respondents.
45 CIC/SM/A/2010/000996
(206.03 KB) pdf icon
28 Mar, 2011 Smt. Sujita Behal vs CPIO, Central Bank of India

The Appellant had sought some 10 items of information regarding the salary and other payments made to an employee of the Bank, her husband in this case, with whom she had a marital dispute. The Commission held that the account number even if it happens to be that of the husband of the Appellant cannot be disclosed by the Bank as this kind of information is exempt from disclosure. Section 8(1)(j) and 11
Total Case uploaded: 65