RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Personal Information
| S.No. | CIC CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 181 |
CIC/LS/A/2010/001140DS (86.57 KB) 
|
29 Dec, 2010 | Sh.Anil Manwani, Mumbai Vs. Income Tax Officer The applicant sought information pertaining to income tax assessments completed by Income Tax Officer for the period from 1st December 2009 to 31st December 2009. The Commission upholds the order of the CPIO and the first appellate authority in denying disclosure of the third party information which has no relationship with any public activity or interest. Section 8(1)(j) |
| 182 |
CIC/SM/A/2010/000805 & 809 (206.90 KB)
|
21 Dec, 2010 | Shri R K Jain Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank The Appellant had sought a number of information (a) regarding the income tax and property returns filed by Sh. RS Siddu and (b) the legal expenses incurred by the Bank in a series of cases it contested against the Appellant himself. The Commission held that while the property returns filed by Sh. Siddu cannot be disclosed being in the nature of personal information, as it can cause unwarranted invasion of his privacy, other details such as whether he had ever been charge sheeted and about his postings and promotions during the preceding 10 years can be disclosed. Similarly, the payments made to the lawyers and the other expenses incurred in connection with the cases can also be disclosed as there is nothing confidential or personal about it. Section8(1)(j) |
| 183 |
CIC/SG/A/2010/002806/10448 (45.96 KB)
|
15 Dec, 2010 | Mrs. Rekha Sharma vs Mr. J. B. Singh Public Information Officer & Dy. Director of Education Directorate of Education (GNCTD) The Commission held that the information on all the queries except one, cannot be considered exempt under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The third party had objected to releasing the information but most of the information actually be in public domain. Hence, the information must be provided. Section 8(1) (j) |
| 184 |
CIC/SM/A/2010/000758 (205.69 KB)
|
09 Dec, 2010 | Shri Pankaj Kumar Jha Vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank The appellant had wanted the details of the employees of the erstwhile Bharat Overseas Bank which had merged in the Indian Overseas Bank. The Commission held that the information should be provided to the applicant. Section 7(9) Section 8(1)(j) |
| 185 |
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) |
| 186 |
CIC/SM/A/2010/000730 & 765 (206.17 KB)
|
07 Dec, 2010 | Shri Anurag Mohan Rathore S/o. Sri Gauri Shanker Vs. CPIO, Shreyas Gramin Bank Information about the amount of compensation paid to the employee of any public authority must be available in the public domain. The Appellant is entitled to know the maintenance allowance being paid to this particular employee irrespective of whether he is his father or anyone else. CPIO is directed to provide the information. Section 8(1)(j) |
| 187 |
CIC/AD/C/2010/001037 (205.50 KB)
|
06 Dec, 2010 | Shri Om Prakash S/o Late Munivenkatappa Vs. South Western Railway The Commission held that the information being held by the Public Authority on immovable assets of an employee cannot be termed as ‘personal’ and hence directed the PIO to provide the information as available with the Public Authority to the complainant. Section 8(1)(j) |
| 188 |
CIC/AD/C/2010/001036 (220.71 KB)
|
06 Dec, 2010 | Shri Om Prakash S/o Late Munivenkatappa Vs. The Public Information Officer South Western Railway The Applicant filed an RTI application seeking certified copy of service record / register of Dr. S.V.O Chandakumar. - the Commission held that information sought cannot be termed as personal information pertaining to a ‘third party’ since it relates to service details of a Public Servant. The PIO is therefore directed to provide complete information to the Complaint after invoking section 10(1) of the RTI Act, if required. Section 11(1) |
| 189 |
CIC/SM/A/2010/000544 (212.95 KB)
|
10 Nov, 2010 | Shri Om Prakash vs CPIO, Bank of India, Zonal Office, 78A, Rajbhawan Complex, Canal Road, Kanpur The appellant filed an application seeking information regarding her complaint and wanted to know which of the 54 signatories of the complaint were false. Request for verification of signature does not come under the definition of information, as per the RTI Act. Section 7(1) |
| 190 |
CIC/AT/A/2007/00490 (60.71 KB)
|
05 Mar, 2008 | Shri G.R. Rawal Vs. Director General of Income Tax The appellant vide RTI application dated 11.10.2006 sought the following information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005: “Tax payable as per decision of Settlement Commission in the case of Winprolene Plastics and tax paid by said company.” The CPIO is directed to provide the information in terms of the decision noted above within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. |
Total Case uploaded: 190