welcome to Third Party Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
16	CIC/NRAIL/A/2017/145203 (480.78 KB)	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.
17	CIC/POSTS/A/2017/304586 (51.52 KB)	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.
18	CIC/BSNLD/A/2016/298476 (147.48 KB)	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.
19	CIC/BS/A/2016/900115 (58.40 KB)	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.
20	CIC/BS/C/2015/000108 (55.08 KB)	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.
21	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 (74.32 KB)	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.
22	CIC/MP/A/2016/001646 (23.75 KB)	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.
23	CIC/MP/A/2016/001548 (45.50 KB)	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
24	CIC/CC/A/2015/002288-SA (63.56 KB)	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.
25	CIC/RM/A/2014/000535DP (94.98 KB)	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.
26	CIC/BS/A/2014/001310/7739 (0 bytes)	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'.
27	CIC/SA/A/2014/001377 (207.57 KB)	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.
28	CIC/MP/A/2014/000930 (114.73 KB)	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.
29	CIC/YA/A/2014/000517 (103.29 KB)	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.
30	CIC/MP/A/2014/001008 (189.42 KB)	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.

16

CIC/NRAIL/A/2017/145203
(480.78 KB) pdf icon

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.

17

CIC/POSTS/A/2017/304586
(51.52 KB) pdf icon

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.

18

CIC/BSNLD/A/2016/298476
(147.48 KB) pdf icon

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.

19

CIC/BS/A/2016/900115
(58.40 KB) pdf icon

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.

20

CIC/BS/C/2015/000108
(55.08 KB) pdf icon

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.

21

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
(74.32 KB) pdf icon

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.

22

CIC/MP/A/2016/001646
(23.75 KB) pdf icon

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.

23

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

24

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.

25

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.

26

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'.

27

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.

28

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.

29

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.

30

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.