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

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
31	CIC/BS/A/2014/000818 CIC/BS/A/2014/001164 (51.56 KB)	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.
32	CIC/DS/A/2013/001939 (88.14 KB)	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.
33	CIC/LS/A/2012/900254/BS/1739 (39.50 KB)	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.
34	CIC/SM/A/2011/002022/VS/01269 (54.15 KB)	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
35	CIC/LS/A/2011/003920/BS/0423 (243.53 KB)	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)
36	CIC/LS/A/2011/003384 (41.51 KB)	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.
37	CIC/SG/A/2012/001433/19367 (55.44 KB)	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
38	CIC/LS/A/2011/003406/BS/0242 Adjunct (55.37 KB)	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
39	CIC/SG/A/2012/000714/19109 (66.69 KB)	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.
40	CIC/LS/A/2011/003406/BS/0242 (53.27 KB)	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.
41	CIC/AD/A/2012/000874 (307.67 KB)	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)
42	CIC/AD/C/2012/000614 (310.50 KB)	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.
43	CIC/SS/A/2012/000167 (209.14 KB)	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)
44	CIC/SG/A/2012/000433/18345 (51.91 KB)	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
45	CIC/SM/A/2011/002810 & CIC/SM/C/2011/001444 (208.56 KB)	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)

31

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.

32

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.

33

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.

34

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

35

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)

36

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.

37

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

38

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

39

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.

40

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.

41

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)

42

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.

43

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)

44

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

45

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)