RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Third Party Information
| S.No. | CIC CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46 |
CIC/AD/A/2012/000759 (211.85 KB) 
|
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. |
| 47 |
CIC/DS/A/2011/001046 (206.27 KB)
|
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. |
| 48 |
CIC/LS/A/2011/001326 (29.11 KB)
|
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. |
| 49 |
CIC/SM/A/2010/001250 (205.90 KB)
|
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. |
| 50 |
CIC/SM/C/2011/000934 (136.97 KB)
|
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. |
| 51 |
CIC/SS/A/2010/001146 (172.65 KB)
|
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. |
| 52 |
CIC/SM/A/2010/000996 (206.03 KB)
|
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 |
| 53 |
CIC/AD/A/2011/000234 (305.40 KB)
|
07 Mar, 2011 | Shri Vimal Kumar Verma vs M/o Railways Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi The Applicant, through his RTI application wanted to obtain from the PIO, Railway Board, New Delhi the copies of OMR sheets in respect of 3 candidates who appeared in the examinations and marks in the written exam as also in the interview conducted by the public authority. The Commission held that it has already held the present category of information as non-disclosable. Section 8(1) (j) |
| 54 |
CIC/DS/A/2010/001338/LS (30.29 KB)
|
23 Dec, 2010 | Shri Babu Lal Yadav vs Deptt. of Posts The Commission held that it is open to the appellant to seek copies of documents which he wishes to have, from the competent court under the provisions of code of Criminal Procedure. The Commission cannot interfere in sub-judice matters. Section 7(1) |
| 55 |
CIC/SM/A/2010/000789 (304.10 KB)
|
20 Dec, 2010 | Shri Shailender Kumar Gaguli vs CPIO, Bank of India, Patna Zone, Chanakya Place, Birchand Patel Nagar, Patna The Appellant wanted to know about the Bank details of his own account and that of the account of his wife. CIC held that, any information which is more than 20 years old, except in certain situations, must be disclosed. Thus, the CPIO has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty for wrongfully denying the information to the Appellant. Section 11 |
| 56 |
CIC/SM/A/2010/000784 (302.67 KB)
|
15 Dec, 2010 | Shri Satendra Kumar Jain vs CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, 68, Kambal Bala Bagh, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar The Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the loans sanctioned etc. The Commission held that, for any CPIO or Appellate Authority to refuse information on the ground that the information seeker did not seem to have any connection with the information is totally unacceptable. Section 6(2) of the RTI Act clearly states that no information seeker shall be required to give any reason for requesting the information. Section 6(2) |
| 57 |
CIC/DS/A/2010/000875 (79.35 KB)
|
13 Dec, 2010 | Shri M.C.Maurya, Lucknow vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Lucknow The Commission upholds the order of the CPIO on the grounds that the RTI Act clearly denies disclosure of personal information pertaining to third party and which has no connection with any public activity or interest. Section 8(1)(j) |
| 58 |
CIC/AD/A/2010/901473 (306.10 KB)
|
09 Dec, 2010 | Shri Mithun Kumar vs East Coast Railway, General Manager’s Office, Ecor Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswr The applicant filed the RTI application with the CPIO, East Coast Railways seeking information regarding Sh. Ramesh Chandra Das, Ret. O. S. Grade- I/KUR/Mechanical and sought the certified copy of the filled application form along with documents annexed/ submitted by Sh. Ramesh Chandra Das at the time of applying for appointment with Indian Railways. He further requested copies of all the certificates and documents that were submitted for joining the Indian Railways. The Commission held that the information sought cannot be termed as “personal” since they related to appointment and promotion of a Public Servant and hence directed the PIO to provide copies of the documents requested after invoking section 10(1) of the RTI Act, if required, to server any part of the information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) and 11 |
| 59 |
CIC/SM/A/2010/000709 (205.94 KB)
|
08 Dec, 2010 | Shri T V Padmanabha vs CPIO, Punjab National Bank The appellant filed RTI application and wanted to have a list of all the employees of the Bank from all over India who had unauthorized abstained from work for more than 90 days but were still in the payroll of the Bank along with the action taken in each case. The Commission held that the CPIO cannot be expected to generate information which does not exist. Appeal disallowed. Section 6(1), 7(9) and 8(1)(j) |
| 60 |
CIC/AD/A/2010/001568 (205.99 KB)
|
08 Dec, 2010 | Shri Mohan Lal vs O/o Chief Engineer (NR) AIR & Doordarshan Jamnagar House Shahjahan Road New Delhi The applicant filed an application seeking photocopies of the RTI Applications filed by Ms. Sheela Meena and replies provided to her. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) as the third party had strongly objected to the disclosure of information as it would cause unwarranted invasion to her privacy. The Commission held that the information cannot be disclosed to the Appellant u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as the disclosure is likely to endanger the life or physical safety of the third party. Section 8(1) (g) and 11 |