welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
151	CIC/DS/A/2011/002119 (205.94 KB)	15 May, 2012	Shri Moti Lal Singh Vs. LIC of India, Begusarai (Bihar) Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation - the Respondent submitted that the information sought about the enquiry officers and their respective designations cannot be provided as per sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the information sought has been rightly denied by the Public Authority under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e), (h)
152	CIC/DS/A/2011/002046 (208.30 KB)	09 May, 2012	Shri Ashok Kumar M. Pandya Vs. Department of Financial Services, N. Delhi (Sh. Vijay Malhotra, Under Secy./CPIO) Levy of Penalty for not providing the information within stipulated period of 30 days-the Appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, seeking the file noting; comments; note sheets and copy of notifications in connection with the appointments of some OED/WED in nationalized banks. CIC held that, information be provided free of cost. Section 7(1)
153	CIC/SG/A/2012/000623/18628 (53.43 KB)	27 Apr, 2012	Mr. Kundan Shrawan Humane Vs. Mr. M. B. Rao PIO & Dy. Regional Manager Dena Bank The appellant sought certain information from the PIO. The Commission held that the PIO is duty bound to explain the reasons based on which he is claiming exemption from disclosure of information as per the provisions of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO is unable to give any reasons to justify the denial of Information. The CIC awarded a compensation to the Appellant of Rs.2000/- as per the provisions of section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing the appeal and getting the information late. Section 6(1) Section 19(8)(b)
154	CIC/DS/A/2011/001429 & 1457/RM (47.36 KB)	24 Apr, 2012	Vinod Kumar Kanvaria Vs. University of Delhi Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information – The Commission held that the disclosure of marks of a student to a third party may cause unwarranted invasion of her privacy in terms of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. CIC further held that “Information as to the names or particulars of the examiners / coordinators / scrutinizers/Head Examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act”.
155	CIC/SG/A/2012/000640/18497 (73.65 KB)	19 Apr, 2012	Mr. Vijay Yashwant Dhabade Vs. Mr. S. K. Mishra Public Information Officer & Chief Manager Dena Bank CIC held that, as per section 11(3), the PIO has to determine whether the information is exempt or not and inform the appellant and the third party of his decision. If the third party wishes to appeal against the decision of the PIO, he can file an appeal under section 19 of the Act as per the provision of section 11(4). Section 11 does not give a third party an unrestrained veto to refuse disclosing information. Section 11(3)
156	CIC/DS/A/2011/001400 (206.35 KB)	12 Apr, 2012	Manoj Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rohtak Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information The respondent stated that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and therefore he could not be provided with any more information pertaining to the claim amount etc. Appellant stated that the vehicle belonged to his father Sh. Bhale Ram – the Commission upheld the order of the CPIO. Information can be provided to Sh. Bhale Ram in case he seeks the same.
157	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)
158	CIC/SM/C/2011/000939 (304.53 KB)	09 Apr, 2012	Smt. Pratibha Mehra Vs. CPIO, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad. Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period of 30 days- the Appellant had sought the photocopies of the service records of one Sh. Nanak Chand Harit, retired Additional District Judge. CIC held that, All public authorities must strive to provide the information within 30 days of receiving the RTI application and, in case of any reasonable delay, must inform the information seeker in time. Section 7(1)
159	CIC/AD/C/2012/000505 (206.14 KB)	03 Apr, 2012	Satpal Sharma Vs. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information The Commission denied the supply of copies of 179 allotment letters to the Appellant since the same is personal information, belonging to a third party.
160	CIC/DS/A/2011/000793 (206.04 KB)	02 Apr, 2012	S.N. Bashu Vs. Income Tax Department, Triupati Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information The Appellant submitted RTI application seeking details of the tax exemptions facilities available for the Government employees and other related details of the Employees applied for such exemptions in the Kadapa district from 1.4.2005 to 31.03.2010 – the Commission held that the information attracts section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it pertains to “Personal information” and no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant for disclosure of the said information. The Commission upholds the CPIO’s Order.
161	CIC/AD/A/2012/000739 (307.93 KB)	21 Mar, 2012	Ram Chander Vs. Directorate Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi. Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information The Commission held that the service details of government employees are not completely exempt from disclosure under the provision of the RTI Act. Only those information (like details of nominees: deduction from monthly pay bills, insurance details etc.), disclosure of which might cause invasion of privacy of a third party has been decided to be withheld from disclosure, while other category of information i.e. service details (like, date of appointment, place of posting, details of increment in salary etc.) which are already in circulation or are available in the public domain, and are very much a part of a ‘service book’ of a government servant, have been allowed to be made available to the information seeker. The PIO shall furnish the present information (i.e. Copy of service book of Ms. Anita Satia, DDE, South) to the appellant after removing from it, under section 10(1) of the RTI Act, all the details which are personal to the third party.
162	CIC/DS/A/2011/000847 (205.16 KB)	21 Mar, 2012	Ram Swaroop Vs. DDA, New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information – The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, DDA, New Delhi seeking details of the allotment of residential property of Ms. Ashma Manjir, Commissioner (housing), DDA at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi under Drawl/Lottery etc. The Commission held that it is of the view that the Public Authority has rightly denied the disclosure of information to the appellant as it is pertaining to ‘third party’ and thus attracts exemption provision of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further the appellant is not able to establish any Larger public interest involved in the present issue.
163	CIC/SM/A/2011/000671 (205.27 KB)	19 Mar, 2012	Krishan Gopal V Punjab National Bank, Shimla Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information The Appellant had wanted to know the name of the person nominated by Sh. Roshan Lal, an employee of the bank for his provident fund account The Commission held that this is surely a personal information within the meaning of sub-section 1(j) of section 8 of the RTI Act. Therefore, in the absence of any authorisation from the employee concerned, the bank was absolutely right in not disclosing this information.
164	CIC/DS/A/2011/001048 (307.16 KB)	16 Mar, 2012	Ramesh Chander Khanna Vs. Income Tax Department, Jalandhar Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information – The Commission held that the appellant did not demonstrate any larger public interest in disclosure of information pertaining to the movable and immovable assets of the third parties. In view of this, the orders of the CPIO and the first appellate authority in denying disclosure of the requested information as per the provision of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act are upheld. Mere allegations of financial impropriety against public officials cannot form the basis for seeking disclosure of information that is personal in nature.
165	CIC/SG/A/2012/000124/17651 (71.17 KB)	13 Mar, 2012	Ashish Kumar Vs. Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information – The Commission held that the answer sheets of a person who sits in a competitive exam are the product of the public activity and disclosure of these cannot be claimed to be an invasion on the privacy of an individual. Besides the proviso to section 8(1)(j) states, “provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”. PIOs when in doubt should apply this acid test laid down by the Parliament. The Commission did not accept the plea of the PIO for exemption. The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant.

151

CIC/DS/A/2011/002119
(205.94 KB) pdf icon

15 May, 2012

Shri Moti Lal Singh Vs. LIC of India, Begusarai (Bihar)

Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation - the Respondent submitted that the information sought about the enquiry officers and their respective designations cannot be provided as per sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the information sought has been rightly denied by the Public Authority under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e), (h)

152

CIC/DS/A/2011/002046
(208.30 KB) pdf icon

09 May, 2012

Shri Ashok Kumar M. Pandya Vs. Department of Financial Services, N. Delhi (Sh. Vijay Malhotra, Under Secy./CPIO)

Levy of Penalty for not providing the information within stipulated period of 30 days-the Appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, seeking the file noting; comments; note sheets and copy of notifications in connection with the appointments of some OED/WED in nationalized banks. CIC held that, information be provided free of cost. Section 7(1)

153

CIC/SG/A/2012/000623/18628
(53.43 KB) pdf icon

27 Apr, 2012

Mr. Kundan Shrawan Humane Vs. Mr. M. B. Rao PIO & Dy. Regional Manager Dena Bank

The appellant sought certain information from the PIO. The Commission held that the PIO is duty bound to explain the reasons based on which he is claiming exemption from disclosure of information as per the provisions of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO is unable to give any reasons to justify the denial of Information. The CIC awarded a compensation to the Appellant of Rs.2000/- as per the provisions of section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing the appeal and getting the information late. Section 6(1) Section 19(8)(b)

154

CIC/DS/A/2011/001429 & 1457/RM
(47.36 KB) pdf icon

24 Apr, 2012

Vinod Kumar Kanvaria Vs. University of Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information –
The Commission held that the disclosure of marks of a student to a third party may cause unwarranted invasion of her privacy in terms of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. CIC further held that “Information as to the names or particulars of the examiners / coordinators / scrutinizers/Head Examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act”.

155

CIC/SG/A/2012/000640/18497
(73.65 KB) pdf icon

19 Apr, 2012

Mr. Vijay Yashwant Dhabade Vs. Mr. S. K. Mishra Public Information Officer & Chief Manager Dena Bank

CIC held that, as per section 11(3), the PIO has to determine whether the information is exempt or not and inform the appellant and the third party of his decision. If the third party wishes to appeal against the decision of the PIO, he can file an appeal under section 19 of the Act as per the provision of section 11(4). Section 11 does not give a third party an unrestrained veto to refuse disclosing information. Section 11(3)

156

CIC/DS/A/2011/001400
(206.35 KB) pdf icon

12 Apr, 2012

Manoj Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rohtak

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information
The respondent stated that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and therefore he could not be provided with any more information pertaining to the claim amount etc. Appellant stated that the vehicle belonged to his father Sh. Bhale Ram – the Commission upheld the order of the CPIO. Information can be provided to Sh. Bhale Ram in case he seeks the same.

157

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)

158

CIC/SM/C/2011/000939
(304.53 KB) pdf icon

09 Apr, 2012

Smt. Pratibha Mehra Vs. CPIO, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad.

Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period of 30 days- the Appellant had sought the photocopies of the service records of one Sh. Nanak Chand Harit, retired Additional District Judge. CIC held that, All public authorities must strive to provide the information within 30 days of receiving the RTI application and, in case of any reasonable delay, must inform the information seeker in time. Section 7(1)

159

CIC/AD/C/2012/000505
(206.14 KB) pdf icon

03 Apr, 2012

Satpal Sharma Vs. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information
The Commission denied the supply of copies of 179 allotment letters to the Appellant since the same is personal information, belonging to a third party.

160

CIC/DS/A/2011/000793
(206.04 KB) pdf icon

02 Apr, 2012

S.N. Bashu Vs. Income Tax Department, Triupati

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information
The Appellant submitted RTI application seeking details of the tax exemptions facilities available for the Government employees and other related details of the Employees applied for such exemptions in the Kadapa district from 1.4.2005 to 31.03.2010 – the Commission held that the information attracts section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it pertains to “Personal information” and no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant for disclosure of the said information. The Commission upholds the CPIO’s Order.

161

CIC/AD/A/2012/000739
(307.93 KB) pdf icon

21 Mar, 2012

Ram Chander Vs. Directorate Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi.

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information
The Commission held that the service details of government employees are not completely exempt from disclosure under the provision of the RTI Act. Only those information (like details of nominees: deduction from monthly pay bills, insurance details etc.), disclosure of which might cause invasion of privacy of a third party has been decided to be withheld from disclosure, while other category of information i.e. service details (like, date of appointment, place of posting, details of increment in salary etc.) which are already in circulation or are available in the public domain, and are very much a part of a ‘service book’ of a government servant, have been allowed to be made available to the information seeker. The PIO shall furnish the present information (i.e. Copy of service book of Ms. Anita Satia, DDE, South) to the appellant after removing from it, under section 10(1) of the RTI Act, all the details which are personal to the third party.

162

CIC/DS/A/2011/000847
(205.16 KB) pdf icon

21 Mar, 2012

Ram Swaroop Vs. DDA, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information –
The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, DDA, New Delhi seeking details of the allotment of residential property of Ms. Ashma Manjir, Commissioner (housing), DDA at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi under Drawl/Lottery etc.
The Commission held that it is of the view that the Public Authority has rightly denied the disclosure of information to the appellant as it is pertaining to ‘third party’ and thus attracts exemption provision of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further the appellant is not able to establish any Larger public interest involved in the present issue.

163

CIC/SM/A/2011/000671
(205.27 KB) pdf icon

19 Mar, 2012

Krishan Gopal V Punjab National Bank, Shimla

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information
The Appellant had wanted to know the name of the person nominated by Sh. Roshan Lal, an employee of the bank for his provident fund account
The Commission held that this is surely a personal information within the meaning of sub-section 1(j) of section 8 of the RTI Act. Therefore, in the absence of any authorisation from the employee concerned, the bank was absolutely right in not disclosing this information.

164

CIC/DS/A/2011/001048
(307.16 KB) pdf icon

16 Mar, 2012

Ramesh Chander Khanna Vs. Income Tax Department, Jalandhar

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information –
The Commission held that the appellant did not demonstrate any larger public interest in disclosure of information pertaining to the movable and immovable assets of the third parties. In view of this, the orders of the CPIO and the first appellate authority in denying disclosure of the requested information as per the provision of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act are upheld. Mere allegations of financial impropriety against public officials cannot form the basis for seeking disclosure of information that is personal in nature.

165

CIC/SG/A/2012/000124/17651
(71.17 KB) pdf icon

13 Mar, 2012

Ashish Kumar Vs. Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India

Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information –
The Commission held that the answer sheets of a person who sits in a competitive exam are the product of the public activity and disclosure of these cannot be claimed to be an invasion on the privacy of an individual. Besides the proviso to section 8(1)(j) states, “provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”. PIOs when in doubt should apply this acid test laid down by the Parliament. The Commission did not accept the plea of the PIO for exemption. The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant.