welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
136	CIC/LS/A/2011/003920/BS/0423 (243.53 KB)	06 Jul, 2012	Mr. Saumil Singh Vs. CPIO The information was denied by the CPIO under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act – the Commission held that the Full Bench of the Commission while deciding the matter of Ms. Mridula Ghai v EPFO on 01/09/2011 in Complaint No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000934 had held that the ACRs are personal to Ms. Ghari and are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j)
137	CIC/AD/A/2012/001089 (205.89 KB)	28 Jun, 2012	Ms. C. Bharati Vs. Southern Railway Office of the Dy. CPO (HQs) The Applicant filed her RTI application with the PIO, Southern Railway, Chennai, seeking information (like, copy to answer scripts; records of service and viva voce marks; inspection of file related to selection process etc.) about the selection process of Group B service through LDCE (30%) AMM Stores Department. the PIO allowed to give a copy of the Applicant’s own answer sheet while denied the disclosure of answer sheets of other candidates – the Commission held that it is well settled law that answer sheets of other candidates cannot be disclosed since it attracts exemption under section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j)
138	CIC/DS/A/2011/003245 (89.30 KB)	28 Jun, 2012	Dr. Anshu Agrawal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The CPIO is directed to reconstruct the file by taking information from the personal file particularly pertaining to his educational qualification on the date of his appointment. Section 8(1)(e)
139	CIC/LS/A/2011/000539 CIC/LS/A/2011/000540 CIC/LS/A/2011/001579 (40.46 KB)	25 Jun, 2012	Ravindra Kumar Sood Vs. NTPC Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information The Commission held (i) in a series of its decisions, it has• held that DPC proceedings are fully disclosable to the appellant provided that he is one of the candidates considered in these proceedings. Third party rule will not operate if the appellant himself is a candidate. However, if appellant is not a candidate, then third party rule will operate; (ii) secondly, held that the information requested for by the appellant is disclosable to him, if any decision has been taken by the competent authority on his representation; (iii) CIC further held that it would be a herculean task to sort out the medical bills requested for by the appellant for as many as 04 calendar years. Besides, it will lead to disproportionate divergence of the resources of the NTPC.
140	CIC/DS/A/2011/001338/RM (76.57 KB)	21 Jun, 2012	Farid Mohammed Shaikh Vs. Income Tax department, Thane Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information The Commission held that in the case of Milap Choraria dated 15.6.2009, a Full Bench of the CIC had upheld the decision of the CPIO and the AA in holding that the Income Tax Returns are ‘Personal information' exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the AA has correctly applied exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act from disclosure of information.
141	CIC/LS/A/2011/004212 (42.34 KB)	19 Jun, 2012	R P Srivastava v HPCL Section 8(1)(j) —Personal information The Commission held that the appellant has sought names of officers of HPCL who were given promotion despite CBI/Vigilance cases pending against them. CIC held that such officers do not deserve protection of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The grounds adduced by the CPIO in denying this information, therefore, cannot be accepted by this Commission. In fact, it would be in the larger public interest to disclose the identity of individuals facing CBI/Vigilance enquires so as to create an environment against corruption in public life. Secondly, if HPCL has spent any money on the visit of Sh. Prem Kumar, Under Secretary, this falls in public domain and warrants disclosure. Similarly, if HPCL has recruited any officers from RGIPT w.e.f. 1.1.2008, this information also falls in public domain and warrants disclosure.
142	CIC/LS/A/2011/003502 (30.81 KB)	18 Jun, 2012	T. Raja Kumar v IOCL, Hyderabad Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information The Commission held that the Five Member Bench of this Commission in Milap Chauraria Case has taken the view that personal information cannot be disclosed. Property details clearly is personal information and cannot be disclosed to a third party without the larger public interest. No such larger public interest has been established before us in as much as the appellant has not appeared before the Commission to canvass his case; nor has he incorporated any material in the appeal memo to this effect. Appeal dismissed.
143	CIC/AD/C/2012/000227 (307.23 KB)	14 Jun, 2012	Shri D.S.Tawar VS Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information — Minutes of the DPC meeting and Annexures The Commission held that the information sought in this eligibility list includes remarks given by the vigilance officers against each of the officers in the zone of consideration including reasons for not empanelling them — the eligibility list is denied to the Appellant u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
144	CIC/DS/A/2011/001229/RM (67.70 KB)	08 Jun, 2012	H.K. Sharma v Income Tax Department, New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information The information relating to PAN and other information such as address, documents submitted as proof of identity and address is personal information of the PAN holder and subject to confidentiality u/s 138 of IT Act, hence, exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information.
145	CIC/DS/A/2011/001346 (74.34 KB)	28 May, 2012	Hemanth Singh v Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information The appellant had sought answer copies of BA-I year of a few students The CPIO informed that photo copies of the answer sheets cannot be provided as they are secret. However, a student can see his answer copy as per rule laid down The Commission upheld the stand of the CPIO and Appellate Authority.
146	CIC/DS/A/2011/002328 (86.59 KB)	28 May, 2012	Manoj Shamlal Vs. LIC of India, Thane, Maharashtra Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information The appellant submitted RTl application before the CPIO, LIC of India, Thane to seek information pertaining to insurance policy taken by the late Smt. Kiran Ashok Rijwani The Commission held that no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant in his second Appeal. The Commission denied the disclosure of information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
147	CIC/SG/A/2012/000714/19109 (66.69 KB)	28 May, 2012	J. S. Gaba Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) — Personal 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.
148	CIC/DS/A/2011/001365 & 1366/RM (80.29 KB)	25 May, 2012	Dr. Sube Singh v University of Delhi Section 8(l)(j) — Personal information The appellant sought photo copies of application forms submitted by students applying for DUMET-2000 conducted by University of Delhi The Commission held that it is in agreement with the appellant that the submission of forms does not come under the category of fiduciary relationship, as disclosure of details in the application form is mandatory. However, there is merit in the contention of the CPIO that the form contains information which is personal in nature and is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTl Act.
149	CIC/DS/A/2011/001384/RM (89.83 KB)	24 May, 2012	Ramesh Sawant Vs. Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information The Commission held that as the information sought by the appellant related to himself, primarily, denial of such information is a totally wrong interpretation of the RTl Act. Apprising the appellant that he could have asked for these details during the period he was in service, and not after is unwarranted. The RTI Act does not stipulate anywhere the stage at which an individual can seek information.
150	CIC/DS/A/2011/001173/RM (92.32 KB)	16 May, 2012	Mr. S.N. Yadav Vs. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Orders of the CPIO and the first appellate authority in denying disclosure of the requested information as per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) are upheld. Section 8(1)(j)

136

CIC/LS/A/2011/003920/BS/0423
(243.53 KB) pdf icon

06 Jul, 2012

Mr. Saumil Singh Vs. CPIO

The information was denied by the CPIO under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act – the Commission held that the Full Bench of the Commission while deciding the matter of Ms. Mridula Ghai v EPFO on 01/09/2011 in Complaint No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000934 had held that the ACRs are personal to Ms. Ghari and are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j)

137

CIC/AD/A/2012/001089
(205.89 KB) pdf icon

28 Jun, 2012

Ms. C. Bharati Vs. Southern Railway Office of the Dy. CPO (HQs)

The Applicant filed her RTI application with the PIO, Southern Railway, Chennai, seeking information (like, copy to answer scripts; records of service and viva voce marks; inspection of file related to selection process etc.) about the selection process of Group B service through LDCE (30%) AMM Stores Department. the PIO allowed to give a copy of the Applicant’s own answer sheet while denied the disclosure of answer sheets of other candidates – the Commission held that it is well settled law that answer sheets of other candidates cannot be disclosed since it attracts exemption under section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j)

138

CIC/DS/A/2011/003245
(89.30 KB) pdf icon

28 Jun, 2012

Dr. Anshu Agrawal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The CPIO is directed to reconstruct the file by taking information from the personal file particularly pertaining to his educational qualification on the date of his appointment. Section 8(1)(e)

139

CIC/LS/A/2011/000539 CIC/LS/A/2011/000540 CIC/LS/A/2011/001579
(40.46 KB) pdf icon

25 Jun, 2012

Ravindra Kumar Sood Vs. NTPC

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information

The Commission held (i) in a series of its decisions, it has• held that DPC proceedings are fully disclosable to the appellant provided that he is one of the candidates considered in these proceedings. Third party rule will not operate if the appellant himself is a candidate. However, if appellant is not a candidate, then third party rule will operate; (ii) secondly, held that the information requested for by the appellant is disclosable to him, if any decision has been taken by the competent authority on his representation; (iii) CIC further held that it would be a herculean task to sort out the medical bills requested for by the appellant for as many as 04 calendar years. Besides, it will lead to disproportionate divergence of the resources of the NTPC.

140

CIC/DS/A/2011/001338/RM
(76.57 KB) pdf icon

21 Jun, 2012

Farid Mohammed Shaikh Vs. Income Tax department, Thane

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information
The Commission held that in the case of Milap Choraria dated 15.6.2009, a Full Bench of the CIC had upheld the decision of the CPIO and the AA in holding that the Income Tax Returns are ‘Personal information' exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the AA has correctly applied exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act from disclosure of information.

141

CIC/LS/A/2011/004212
(42.34 KB) pdf icon

19 Jun, 2012

R P Srivastava v HPCL

Section 8(1)(j) —Personal information
The Commission held that the appellant has sought names of officers of HPCL who were given promotion despite CBI/Vigilance cases pending against them.

CIC held that such officers do not deserve protection of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The grounds adduced by the CPIO in denying this information, therefore, cannot be accepted by this Commission. In fact, it would be in the larger public interest to disclose the identity of individuals facing CBI/Vigilance enquires so as to create an environment against corruption in public life. Secondly, if HPCL has spent any money on the visit of Sh. Prem Kumar, Under Secretary, this falls in public domain and warrants disclosure. Similarly, if HPCL has recruited any officers from RGIPT w.e.f. 1.1.2008, this information also falls in public domain and warrants disclosure.

142

CIC/LS/A/2011/003502
(30.81 KB) pdf icon

18 Jun, 2012

T. Raja Kumar v IOCL, Hyderabad

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information
The Commission held that the Five Member Bench of this Commission in Milap Chauraria Case has taken the view that personal information cannot be disclosed. Property details clearly is personal information and cannot be disclosed to a third party without the larger public interest. No such larger public interest has been established before us in as much as the appellant has not appeared before the Commission to canvass his case; nor has he incorporated any material in the appeal memo to this effect. Appeal dismissed.

143

CIC/AD/C/2012/000227
(307.23 KB) pdf icon

14 Jun, 2012

Shri D.S.Tawar VS Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information — Minutes of the DPC meeting and Annexures
The Commission held that the information sought in this eligibility list includes remarks given by the vigilance officers against each of the officers in the zone of consideration including reasons for not empanelling them — the eligibility list is denied to the Appellant u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

144

CIC/DS/A/2011/001229/RM
(67.70 KB) pdf icon

08 Jun, 2012

H.K. Sharma v Income Tax Department, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information
The information relating to PAN and other information such as address, documents submitted as proof of identity and address is personal information of the PAN holder and subject to confidentiality u/s 138 of IT Act, hence, exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information.

145

CIC/DS/A/2011/001346
(74.34 KB) pdf icon

28 May, 2012

Hemanth Singh v Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information
The appellant had sought answer copies of BA-I year of a few students
The CPIO informed that photo copies of the answer sheets cannot be provided as they are secret. However, a student can see his answer copy as per rule laid down
The Commission upheld the stand of the CPIO and Appellate Authority.

146

CIC/DS/A/2011/002328
(86.59 KB) pdf icon

28 May, 2012

Manoj Shamlal Vs. LIC of India, Thane, Maharashtra

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information
The appellant submitted RTl application before the CPIO, LIC of India, Thane to seek information pertaining to insurance policy taken by the late Smt. Kiran Ashok Rijwani
The Commission held that no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant in his second Appeal. The Commission denied the disclosure of information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

147

CIC/SG/A/2012/000714/19109
(66.69 KB) pdf icon

28 May, 2012

J. S. Gaba Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal 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.

148

CIC/DS/A/2011/001365 & 1366/RM
(80.29 KB) pdf icon

25 May, 2012

Dr. Sube Singh v University of Delhi

Section 8(l)(j) — Personal information
The appellant sought photo copies of application forms submitted by students applying for DUMET-2000 conducted by University of Delhi
The Commission held that it is in agreement with the appellant that the submission of forms does not come under the category of fiduciary relationship, as disclosure of details in the application form is mandatory. However, there is merit in the contention of the CPIO that the form contains information which is personal in nature and is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTl Act.

149

CIC/DS/A/2011/001384/RM
(89.83 KB) pdf icon

24 May, 2012

Ramesh Sawant Vs. Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal information
The Commission held that as the information sought by the appellant related to himself, primarily, denial of such information is a totally wrong interpretation of the RTl Act. Apprising the appellant that he could have asked for these details during the period he was in service, and not after is unwarranted. The RTI Act does not stipulate anywhere the stage at which an individual can seek information.

150

CIC/DS/A/2011/001173/RM
(92.32 KB) pdf icon

16 May, 2012

Mr. S.N. Yadav Vs. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

Orders of the CPIO and the first appellate authority in denying disclosure of the requested information as per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) are upheld. Section 8(1)(j)