welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
166	CIC/AT/A/2010/001143/SS (181.17 KB)	30 Sep, 2011	Shri Ashok Kumar Singh vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on ten queries pertaining of CMD, BCCL regarding date of appointment, Movable and immovable property held by his parents on the date of his appointment, income tax return of his parents, his personal movable and immovable property, bank accounts with investment in LIC, shares, mutual funds etc. The Commission finds no justification for disclosure of requisite information to the appellant, which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
167	CIC/SM/A/2010/001513 (206.28 KB)	26 Sep, 2011	Shri Amit Kumar Rohtak Vs. CPIO, Union Bank of India, Karnal (Haryana). The Appellant had wanted some details regarding the account(s) of the Vaish College of Engineering. The CPIO had denied the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC agreed with the decision of the CPIO. Since the account of the College is maintained in the bank in commercial confidence, ordinarily, details about it cannot be disclosed to anyone. Since there are three signatories to this account who are to operate it jointly, the no objection given by one of the signatories cannot be construed as an authorisation for seeking such details.
168	CIC/AD/A/2011/901380/SG/14565 (53.97 KB)	13 Sep, 2011	Dr. Yogesh Parikh vs Dr. Reena Nayyar Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary , Assistant Secretary The appellant filed RTI application before the PIO, Medical Council of India and along with other information sought certified copy of any one declaration form of Dr. BansiDhar Gupta, Professor Forensic Medicine, received by MCI from MP Shah Medical College, Jamnagar in process of all MCI inspections conducted in the institute in last 03 year. The Commission directed the respondent to severe this as per section 10 of the RTI Act and provide rest of the declaration to the appellant.
169	CIC/AT/A/2010/001124-DS (87.51 KB)	07 Sep, 2011	Shri Krishna Kumar vs State Bank of India The status of payment of Provident Fund and pension to the wife and dependents of Late Onkar Prasad an employee of D.G. Project under Block II area of BCCL – the FAA observed that information desired by the appellant, relates to PF and Pension settlement involving monetary implications which relates to personal information of the pensioner, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity of interest. funds deposited with the above mentioned branch as these funds are from Government account and to be used for development purposes. This information is required to be disclosed as these are public monies for implementation of a national program.
170	CIC/LS/A?2011/001509 (36.01 KB)	02 Sep, 2011	Shri S.C. Mishra vs Indian Army The appellant requested for copy of the comments / observations of Maj. Gen. T.P.S. Bakshi and Lt. Gen. P.K. Rampal on his non statutory complaint and his statutory complaint — the respondent submitted that the comments given by RO and SRO involve elements of the appellant's ACR but this information is not disclosable to the appellant as per Army Regulations. The Commission held that a similar matter was decided earlier by the Commission in File No. CIC/LS/C/2009/000041 (Lt. Col Harpreet Singh v Indian Army) wherein the Commission held that providing copies of the comments of IO and RO on a statutory complaint would amount to virtual disclosure of appellant's entire ACR which is not permissible in terms of Dev Dutt Case and the Army Regulations.
171	CIC/DS/A/2011/000394 (91.25 KB)	01 Sep, 2011	Shri P.rajendran, New Delhi vs Income Tax Department, New Delhi The appellant filed RTI application seeking information pertaining to the correspondence and assessment orders for the assessment years 1999-2000 up to 2005-06 the CPIO denied the information under section 8(1)(g) and section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the order of the first appellant authority that the information sought by the appellant cannot be furnished on the grounds that when there is already an order of the Delhi High Court staying the order of the ITAT for production of all records including those referred on in the RTI application of the appellant, the appellant cannot use an alternate route for gaining the same by making application under the RTI Act.
172	CIC/SG/C/2010/001567+000047/12193Adjunct (66.63 KB)	01 Jun, 2011	Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, Ghaziabad,U.P. Vs. PIO & Assistant Commissioner (HQ), Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Dept., GNCTD, Delhi. RTI is about pension that is illegally received by Smt. Anaro, New Delhi. CPIO intimated that Mrs. Anaro Devi is only getting Old age pension and not widow pension. Mrs. Anaro Devi had objected in releasing her information hence attested photocopies of documents cannot be supplied. CIC held that, a mere refusal by the third party cannot constitute a reasons for denial of information unless the information is exempt under Section- 8(1) of the RTI Act. Details of beneficiaries of various schemes cannot be considered as exempt under Section-8(1) of the RTI Act.
173	CIC/SG/A/2011/000149/12046 (51.58 KB)	19 Apr, 2011	Mr. Raghu S Bangalore Vs. Mr. P. V. Verma Public Information Officer & RPFC-II Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Nagpur. The Appellant has sought information about the individual contributions made by employees in their PF accounts. The PIO has claimed exemption under Section-8(1)(j) & (e) of the RTI Act. The Commission earlier has also ruled that the employees PF contribution is clearly held under the Fiduciary Relationship by the PF Authorities and hence cannot be revealed.
174	CIC/LS/A/2010/001312 (27.53 KB)	31 Mar, 2011	Shri Jayant Kumar Das Vs. Department of Posts, Bhubneshwar Vide RTI application dated 6.3.2010, the appellant had requested for information about the movable and immovable properties of Shri Pradeep Kumar Nayak and the members of his family etc. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information vide letter dated 5.4.2010 u/s 8 (1) of the RTI Act. CIC observed that, appellant is requesting for ‘personal’ information. This information is barred from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j). This information can be disclosed only in the larger public interest. The appellant has not made out a case that disclosure of this information would be in the larger public interest. Hence, the appeal dismissed.
175	CIC/DS/A/2010/001659 (86.28 KB)	30 Mar, 2011	Sh. Raj Kumar Singh, New Delhi Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., N.Delhi. Shri Raj Kumar Singh preferred RTI application dated 11 December 2009 before the CPIO, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi seeking information pertaining to official trips made by Ms Nita Sharma and leave of absence availed by her in March 2005. The CPIO denied disclosure of information citing the provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. After hearing both parties the Commission directs respondent to provide information sought by the appellant since this pertained to the official records held by the appellant and the expenditure for the official trips was incurred by the public authority from public monies.
176	CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300-SM (210.64 KB)	29 Mar, 2011	Shri Ashok Golas, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat the Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the selection and appointment of the Member (Services) and Member (Technology) of the Telecom Commission and Chairman,TRAI. By and large, the CPIO had declined the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC held that, Selection and appointment to certain posts in the government are part of the administrative decision¬making process and must be placed in the public domain as soon as possible in order to ensure transparency. It is for this reason that even Section 8(1) (i) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which ordinarily exempts Cabinet papers from disclosure provides that a number of information about the decision-making by the Council of Ministers would have to be disclosed after the decision is taken and the matter is complete and over. If the CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300¬SM information regarding selection and appointment to any public office is not disclosed by claiming it to be personal information, it would be nothing but a travesty of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC directed the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 20 working days from the receipt of this order and to show him the entire file, as available with the Cabinet Secretariat, regarding the selection to the post of the Chairman, TRAI in response to the advertisement dated 5 February 2009 but excluding all information in respect of the ACRs of all candidates other than the Appellant himself. If after inspecting the file, the Appellant would choose to get the photocopies of some of the records and documents, the CPIO shall provide the same to him free of charge.
177	CIC/SM/A/2010/000967 (204.91 KB)	16 Mar, 2011	Shri N Nagesh Vs. CPIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. The appellant had sought some information relating to the Hindi officers employed by the public authority and their education qualification which was denied by the CPIO being personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that details about the educational qualifications of the employees cannot be classified as personal information since it is based on these qualifications that people are appointed in the first place. Section 8(1)(j)
178	CIC/SG/A/2011/000029/11500 (52.90 KB)	16 Mar, 2011	Mr. T. P. Singh vs Public Information Officer & Join Registrar (Plg. & Policy) Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University Kashmere Gate, Delhi Whether institutions, organisations or a corporate can claim exemption under section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information. The Commission held that in common language, the adjective 'personal' applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. Therefore, 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions, organisationor corporates. Hence, Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates. Also educational institutions cannot claim exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act which relates to commercial confidence.
179	CIC/AD/A/2011/000309 (312.00 KB)	09 Mar, 2011	Shri T.M.Chacko S/o Late Markose Vs. Regional Passport Office Hudco The Appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO, RPO, Delhi seeking certain information relating to Passport details of a third party. The Commission held that in the facts and circumstances of the case larger public interest certainly outweighs any harm to protected interests of the third party in this case and accordingly directed the PIO to provide the information as sought by the appellant. Section 8(1)(j)
180	CIC/DS/A/2010/001576 (79.40 KB)	03 Mar, 2011	Shri S.K.Gupta, Chandigarh vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd, Mumbai The applicant preferred RTI application before the CPIO, The New India Assurance Company Limited, seeking to have copies of his ACRs for the period 2000-01 to 2009-10. The CIC held that in the spirit of promoting transparency in the evaluation of employees which is intended to help them to reassess their own performances and bridge their own deficiencies the respondents are directed to provide overall marks awarded to the appellant.

166

CIC/AT/A/2010/001143/SS
(181.17 KB) pdf icon

30 Sep, 2011

Shri Ashok Kumar Singh vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad

The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on ten queries pertaining of CMD, BCCL regarding date of appointment, Movable and immovable property held by his parents on the date of his appointment, income tax return of his parents, his personal movable and immovable property, bank accounts with investment in LIC, shares, mutual funds etc. The Commission finds no justification for disclosure of requisite information to the appellant, which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

167

CIC/SM/A/2010/001513
(206.28 KB) pdf icon

26 Sep, 2011

Shri Amit Kumar Rohtak Vs. CPIO, Union Bank of India, Karnal (Haryana).

The Appellant had wanted some details regarding the account(s) of the Vaish College of Engineering. The CPIO had denied the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

CIC agreed with the decision of the CPIO. Since the account of the College is maintained in the bank in commercial confidence, ordinarily, details about it cannot be disclosed to anyone. Since there are three signatories to this account who are to operate it jointly, the no objection given by one of the signatories cannot be construed as an authorisation for seeking such details.

168

CIC/AD/A/2011/901380/SG/14565
(53.97 KB) pdf icon

13 Sep, 2011

Dr. Yogesh Parikh vs Dr. Reena Nayyar Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary , Assistant Secretary

The appellant filed RTI application before the PIO, Medical Council of India and along with other information sought certified copy of any one declaration form of Dr. BansiDhar Gupta, Professor Forensic Medicine, received by MCI from MP Shah Medical College, Jamnagar in process of all MCI inspections conducted in the institute in last 03 year. The Commission directed the respondent to severe this as per section 10 of the RTI Act and provide rest of the declaration to the appellant.

169

CIC/AT/A/2010/001124-DS
(87.51 KB) pdf icon

07 Sep, 2011

Shri Krishna Kumar vs State Bank of India

The status of payment of Provident Fund and pension to the wife and dependents of Late Onkar Prasad an employee of D.G. Project under Block II area of BCCL – the FAA observed that information desired by the appellant, relates to PF and Pension settlement involving monetary implications which relates to personal information of the pensioner, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity of interest. funds deposited with the above mentioned branch as these funds are from Government account and to be used for development purposes. This information is required to be disclosed as these are public monies for implementation of a national program.

170

CIC/LS/A?2011/001509
(36.01 KB) pdf icon

02 Sep, 2011

Shri S.C. Mishra vs Indian Army

The appellant requested for copy of the comments / observations of Maj. Gen. T.P.S. Bakshi and Lt. Gen. P.K. Rampal on his non statutory complaint and his statutory complaint — the respondent submitted that the comments given by RO and SRO involve elements of the appellant's ACR but this information is not disclosable to the appellant as per Army Regulations. The Commission held that a similar matter was decided earlier by the Commission in File No. CIC/LS/C/2009/000041 (Lt. Col Harpreet Singh v Indian Army) wherein the Commission held that providing copies of the comments of IO and RO on a statutory complaint would amount to virtual disclosure of appellant's entire ACR which is not permissible in terms of Dev Dutt Case and the Army Regulations.

171

CIC/DS/A/2011/000394
(91.25 KB) pdf icon

01 Sep, 2011

Shri P.rajendran, New Delhi vs Income Tax Department, New Delhi

The appellant filed RTI application seeking information pertaining to the correspondence and assessment orders for the assessment years 1999-2000 up to 2005-06 the CPIO denied the information under section 8(1)(g) and section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the order of the first appellant authority that the information sought by the appellant cannot be furnished on the grounds that when there is already an order of the Delhi High Court staying the order of the ITAT for production of all records including those referred on in the RTI application of the appellant, the appellant cannot use an alternate route for gaining the same by making application under the RTI Act.

172

CIC/SG/C/2010/001567+000047/12193Adjunct
(66.63 KB) pdf icon

01 Jun, 2011

Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, Ghaziabad,U.P. Vs. PIO & Assistant Commissioner (HQ), Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Dept., GNCTD, Delhi.

RTI is about pension that is illegally received by Smt. Anaro, New Delhi. CPIO intimated that Mrs. Anaro Devi is only getting Old age pension and not widow pension. Mrs. Anaro Devi had objected in releasing her information hence attested photocopies of documents cannot be supplied.
CIC held that, a mere refusal by the third party cannot constitute a reasons for denial of information unless the information is exempt under Section- 8(1) of the RTI Act. Details of beneficiaries of various schemes cannot be considered as exempt under Section-8(1) of the RTI Act.

173

CIC/SG/A/2011/000149/12046
(51.58 KB) pdf icon

19 Apr, 2011

Mr. Raghu S Bangalore Vs. Mr. P. V. Verma Public Information Officer & RPFC-II Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Nagpur.

The Appellant has sought information about the individual contributions made by employees in their PF accounts. The PIO has claimed exemption under Section-8(1)(j) & (e) of the RTI Act. The Commission earlier has also ruled that the employees PF contribution is clearly held under the Fiduciary Relationship by the PF Authorities and hence cannot be revealed.

174

CIC/LS/A/2010/001312
(27.53 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2011

Shri Jayant Kumar Das Vs. Department of Posts, Bhubneshwar

Vide RTI application dated 6.3.2010, the appellant had requested for information about the movable and immovable properties of Shri Pradeep Kumar Nayak and the members of his family etc. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information vide letter dated 5.4.2010 u/s 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
CIC observed that, appellant is requesting for ‘personal’ information. This information is barred from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j). This information can be disclosed only in the larger public interest. The appellant has not made out a case that disclosure of this information would be in the larger public interest. Hence, the appeal dismissed.

175

CIC/DS/A/2010/001659
(86.28 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2011

Sh. Raj Kumar Singh, New Delhi Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., N.Delhi.

Shri Raj Kumar Singh preferred RTI application dated 11 December 2009 before the CPIO, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi seeking information pertaining to official trips made by Ms Nita Sharma and leave of absence availed by her in March 2005. The CPIO denied disclosure of information citing the provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.
After hearing both parties the Commission directs respondent to provide information sought by the appellant since this pertained to the official records held by the appellant and the expenditure for the official trips was incurred by the public authority from public monies.

176

CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300-SM
(210.64 KB) pdf icon

29 Mar, 2011

Shri Ashok Golas, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat

the Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the selection and appointment of the Member (Services) and Member (Technology) of the Telecom Commission and Chairman,TRAI. By and large, the CPIO had declined the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
CIC held that, Selection and appointment to certain posts in the government are part of the administrative decision¬making process and must be placed in the public domain as soon as possible in order to ensure transparency. It is for this reason that even Section 8(1) (i) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which ordinarily exempts Cabinet papers from disclosure provides that a number of information about the decision-making by the Council of Ministers would have to be disclosed after the decision is taken and the matter is complete and over. If the CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300¬SM information regarding selection and appointment to any public office is not disclosed by claiming it to be personal information, it would be nothing but a travesty of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC directed the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 20 working days from the receipt of this order and to show him the entire file, as available with the Cabinet Secretariat, regarding the selection to the post of the Chairman, TRAI in response to the advertisement dated 5 February 2009 but excluding all information in respect of the ACRs of all candidates other than the Appellant himself. If after inspecting the file, the Appellant would choose to get the photocopies of some of the records and documents, the CPIO shall provide the same to him free of charge.

177

CIC/SM/A/2010/000967
(204.91 KB) pdf icon

16 Mar, 2011

Shri N Nagesh Vs. CPIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.

The appellant had sought some information relating to the Hindi officers employed by the public authority and their education qualification which was denied by the CPIO being personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that details about the educational qualifications of the employees cannot be classified as personal information since it is based on these qualifications that people are appointed in the first place. Section 8(1)(j)

178

CIC/SG/A/2011/000029/11500
(52.90 KB) pdf icon

16 Mar, 2011

Mr. T. P. Singh vs Public Information Officer & Join Registrar (Plg. & Policy) Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University Kashmere Gate, Delhi

Whether institutions, organisations or a corporate can claim exemption under section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information. The Commission held that in common language, the adjective 'personal' applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. Therefore, 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions, organisationor corporates. Hence, Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates. Also educational institutions cannot claim exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act which relates to commercial confidence.

179

CIC/AD/A/2011/000309
(312.00 KB) pdf icon

09 Mar, 2011

Shri T.M.Chacko S/o Late Markose Vs. Regional Passport Office Hudco

The Appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO, RPO, Delhi seeking certain information relating to Passport details of a third party. The Commission held that in the facts and circumstances of the case larger public interest certainly outweighs any harm to protected interests of the third party in this case and accordingly directed the PIO to provide the information as sought by the appellant. Section 8(1)(j)

180

CIC/DS/A/2010/001576
(79.40 KB) pdf icon

03 Mar, 2011

Shri S.K.Gupta, Chandigarh vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd, Mumbai

The applicant preferred RTI application before the CPIO, The New India Assurance Company Limited, seeking to have copies of his ACRs for the period 2000-01 to 2009-10. The CIC held that in the spirit of promoting transparency in the evaluation of employees which is intended to help them to reassess their own performances and bridge their own deficiencies the respondents are directed to provide overall marks awarded to the appellant.