ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Tue, May 26, 2020
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
61 CIC/SM/A/2010/000767
(206.63 KB) pdf icon
08 Dec, 2010 Shri R M Jain vs CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Sector – 17B, Inspection Department, Chandigarh

The Appellant had sought (a) copies of the complete correspondence between the Asset Recovery Management Branch and three other persons listed by him; and (b) some other details about the sale of the immovable properties owned by Sh. RM Jain. CIC directed the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the photocopies of the entire correspondence made between the Asset Recovery Management Brach of the bank and the three auction purchasers. Section 8(1)(d) and (e)
62 CIC/DS/A/2010/000980
(206.86 KB) pdf icon
08 Dec, 2010 Sh. C.Navarathanamal Jain, Bangalore vs Life Insurance Corpn. Of India, Mysore/ Bangalore

The applicant filed RTI application before the CPIO, LIC of India seeking to have a copy of the report submitted by Sh VM Balla in his capacity as Investigating officer. The Commission held that the respondent had been far from transparent and their action in trying to withhold information by providing only incomplete and misleading information, contrary to the spirit and letter of the RIT Act. Section 8(1)
63 CIC/AD/A/2010/001516
(207.30 KB) pdf icon
07 Dec, 2010 Shri Anant Kumar vs Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Chittranjan, Distt. Burdwan

CIC held that, information requested by the appellant falls under the purview of section 2(h) and is required to be provided to him. It also observed that the appearance of the appellant before the Commission at a personal cost has been occasioned by the erroneous orders of CPIO and AA. Hence, awarded him compensation of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. Section 2(h) Section 19 (8) (b)
64 CIC/AD/A/2010/001472
(208.64 KB) pdf icon
07 Dec, 2010 Shri B. Appa Rao vs South East Central Railway Divisional Railway Manager’s Office O/o Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer Bilaspur

The Commission held that the loss of file by the office is unacceptable. The Commission directed the PIO to make all efforts to trace the file and conduct an enquiry into the matter of the missing file and fix the responsibility on the official who is guilty of misplacing the file. Disciplinary action is recommended against this official. The PIO also to lodge an FIR with the Police. Section 8(3)
65 CIC/AD/A/2010/001546
(305.92 KB) pdf icon
07 Dec, 2010 Shri Anil Kumar vs Safdarjung Hospital New Delhi

The Commission keeping in view the code of ethics of doctors treating such patients [psychiatric case] denied disclosure of information under section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. The Commission advised the Appellant to obtain an order from a Magistrate or a Court declaring him as the Guardian of the patient. Section 7(1)
66 CIC/AD/C/2010/001018
(205.59 KB) pdf icon
03 Dec, 2010 Shri Kamal Dev vs North Central Railway, Divisional Railway Manager’s office, Allahabad Division, Allahabad

The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO, requesting for the Caste Certificate of Mr. Rohan Singh on the basis of which Mr. Singh was recruited in the railways - the PIO replied stating that the information is a third party information and that third party had denied the disclosure of information to the Appellant. The Commission held that any document on the basis of which a Public Servant enjoys certain special privileges/benefits from the Government cannot be termed as personal information. The CPIO, therefore is directed to provide the Caste Certificate of the third party to the Appellant. Section 8(1)(j) and 11
67 CIC/DS/A/2010/000623
(83.87 KB) pdf icon
03 Dec, 2010 Ms. Asha Rani, Chandigarh vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, New Delhi

The Commission held that in future while outsourcing the task of examining in-house and fresh recruits for promotion/recruitment the respondent company must include suitable clause in its agreement with the outsourced company that the entire marking and results of the examination undertaken by the company on its behalf will be provided to them so that it can be disclosed in the interest of fairness and transparency in the selection process. Section 7(1)
68 CIC/AD/C/2010/000454
(312.51 KB) pdf icon
02 Dec, 2010 Lt. Col Gurdev Singh Hayr vs US (CPV­RTI), Ministry of External Affairs

The applicant filed the RTI application seeking a copy of land related papers attested by the Consulate General of India, Birmingham, which were submitted by his elder sister who is the holder of a British Passport and has settled in Birmingham. These papers pertained to the authorization given by the elder sister to her younger sister-in-law to dispose of ancestral land in India, at her will. The Commission held that the information being sought cannot be termed as ‘personal’ and therefore directed the CPIO Consulate General of India, Birmingham to provide the required information directly to the Appellant. Section 8(1)(j) and 11
69 CIC/SG/A/2010/002387/9748 PENALTY
(81.64 KB) pdf icon
02 Dec, 2010 Mr. Mohan Lal Jonwal vs Mr. Jagdish Kumar, The then EE(B-I, West Zone) & Deemed PIO Presently EE, DEMS, Municipal Corporation of Delhi

The appellant has been seeking information to the effect that whether subletting is permissible in the plot of land given by the MCD on lease to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital Charitable Trust. CIC directed the CPIO to provide the information. Section 7(1)
70 CIC/SM/A/2010/000544
(212.95 KB) pdf icon
10 Nov, 2010 Shri Om Prakash vs CPIO, Bank of India, Zonal Office, 78­A, Rajbhawan Complex, Canal Road, Kanpur

The appellant filed an application seeking information regarding her complaint and wanted to know which of the 54 signatories of the complaint were false. Request for verification of signature does not come under the definition of information, as per the RTI Act. Section 7(1)
71 CIC/AT/C/2008/00025
(84.58 KB) pdf icon
27 Jul, 2009 Shri Milap Choraria Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes

The Complainant Shri Milap Choraria served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure intending to file a civil suit against the Department of Revenue. Subsequently, he received a copy of the Caveat filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-VII, New Delhi. He thereafter submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) seeking to inspect the file in which the matter concerning the said notice served under Section 80 CPC and the caveat as aforesaid has been dealt with especially to verify whether the grievances referred by him in the aforesaid notice were at all fairly examined / considered by the Public Authority. The complainant wanted to inspect the file from the date of receipt of the notice till filing of the caveat with all other documents including the respective legal advice, if any, received by the Ministry. It appears that the RTI request was received by the CPIO on 3.10.2007.


The appellant has failed to cite any public interest that would commend superseding the protected interest in the matter of disclosure of the requested information, within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
72 CIC/AT/A/2008/00027 & 33
(36.46 KB) pdf icon
06 Feb, 2009 Ms. J.D. Sahay Vs. Ministry of Finance

The appellant applied for empanelment/appointment to the post of Member, CBDT twice on 10.5.2006 and 21.11.2006 but was not selected. Aggrieved by non-selection, the appellant by her two RTI Applications, submitted on 10.8.2007 and 17.8.2007 sought certain information which could throw light on the reason for her non-selection.

The Public Authority is directed to make available information in terms of request of the appellant but there shall be no obligation to disclose details concerning 3rd parties. The respondent Public Authority may suitably use the severability clause in Section 10(1) of the Right to Information Act.
Total Case uploaded: 72