welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
91	CIC/KY/A/2015/001155 (166.57 KB)	25 Feb, 2016	P. C. Pande Vs. DDA, LIG Branch (Housing), New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — Section 8(2) — Public Interest — the Commission held that it has been submitted by Asst. Director & PIC), that it is a common terrace and as per rule, the common terrace is to be used by all allottees of the Flats of the same Block as such, the issues are totally covered by the Public Interest as defined under section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which entitle all allottees to use the common terrace. The respondent's responses are not legally tenable and deserve to be quashed and set aside. The appellant has been deprived by the respondents deliberately from having the benefits of the RTI Act, even after lapse of more than six months period thus, the respondents have defeated the very purpose of the RTI Act. The respondents are directed to provide the complete and categorical information.
92	CIC/MP/A/2015/001852 (52.07 KB)	22 Feb, 2016	Rameshwar Dayal Sharma vs State Bank of India, Dehradun Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents to deny the information with regard to point 1 of the RTI application seeking marital status and the names of the wives of the Manger (Security). As regards the salary and allowances of the officials were concerned. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the entitlement of salary and allowances.
93	CIC/MP/A/2015/001592 (47.26 KB)	18 Feb, 2016	R.V. Kamraj vs State Bank of India, Chennai Section 8(l)(j) Personal Information The Commission held that the respondents cannot provide the appellant any information with respect to the loan account of their customer as long as the appellant does not provide any evidence of his being the legal heir of his father's property. The information being sought is third party information and being held by the respondents in fiduciary capacity. The denial of information, therefore, u/s 8(I)(e) and (j) is found to be appropriate at this stage.
94	CIC/MP/A/2015/901418 (90.67 KB)	10 Feb, 2016	Nihar Panda vs National Commission for Women, New Delhi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information The Commission held that the copy of the review petition filed by the NCW before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of section 8(1)() of the RTI Act as the appellant was not a party to the petition and the disclosure of which would reveal the particulars of the petitioner's wife, which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The Commission further held that it disagrees with the decision of the respondents and observed that the appellant's RTI application was replied to by the FAA at appellate stage. The CPIO has failed Right to Information Reporter - 2016 May to respond to the RTI application, therefore, issued show cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO to explain the reasons why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for not responding the RTI application.
95	CIC/VS/A/2014/003653 (445.95 KB)	28 Jan, 2016	Sunil Kumar Vs. O/o ADCP (I) cum PIC), North West District, Delhi Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information the Commission held that in this matter, the appellant has not been able to establish what public interest would be served by the disclosure of the information. The disclosure of personal information related to a third party is exempted under section of the RTI Act, hence, the information sought by the appellant cannot be provided.
96	CIC/SH/A/2014/002807 (209.80 KB)	20 Jan, 2016	Siti Kantha Chatterjee Vs. United Bank Of India, Kolkata Section 8(1)(j)-Personal Information the Respondents stated that as per their records, the loan about which information has been sought was given to a third party and the property pledged for the loan belongs to the borrower the Commission held that there is no ground to reveal the information sought by the Appellant, and upheld the decision of the CPIO to deny the information under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
97	CIC/SH/A/2014/002524 (313.78 KB)	05 Jan, 2016	Goutam Roy Vs. Dena Bank, Mumbai Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information the Commission held that the appellant has not established any larger public interest. Mere unsubstantiated allegation of corruption cannot become the ground Of larger public interest, therefore, the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in this case is upheld.
98	CIC/BS/A/2014/001310/7739 (48.12 KB)	29 May, 2015	B. N. Singh Vs. CPIO & Assistant Director, ESIC The appellant filed sought various information regarding a particular contractor. The PIO denied the information as it is personal in nature, relates to third party and if disclosed would cause unwanted invasion of his privacy and will also harm his competitive position and no public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to the disclosure. The Commission held that the Information relating to the affairs of a private entity the disclosure of which can possibly have an adverse effect on the competitive position of the entity, is exempt under section 8(l)(d) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information relating to individuals and unincorporated entities. The basic protection from disclosure afforded by virtue of these statutory exemptions cannot be lifted or disturbed unléss the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'.
99	CIC/MP/A/2014/000564 (89.73 KB)	31 Mar, 2015	Rahul Gupta State Bank of India, Mumbai The appellant sought information regarding marks obtained by him in the interview/written examination for the post of Assistant Manager, details/list of marks awarded in written examination and in interview to all the general category candidates called for the interview but was denied the information on the ground of its being personal information of the third party and thus exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the public authority has to change its mind set and tune them to the new regime of disclosure of information and should realise that the present era is of transparency and previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place in larger public interest. The Commission directed the respondents to provide aggregate marks obtained by the selected candidates of general category in the above mentioned examination including cut off marks.
100	CIC/MP/A/2014/000927 (189.54 KB)	31 Mar, 2015	Asif Hussain Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad, Gulbarga The appellant sought entire file documents of housing loan given to one Smt. Rahmatunnisa. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on the ground of its being third party information. The respondent stated that the appellant was neither a guarantor nor a borrower in this loan account, therefore it was personal information of the third party who was their customer. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.
101	CIC/SA/A/2014/001213 (290.88 KB)	30 Mar, 2015	Meeta Sharma Vs. PIO, ARID Forest Research Institution The appellant sought copy of minutes of meeting of pre-thesis submission seminar of Ms. Anchal Sharma, copy of her thesis, all correspondence of research work since inception till date, rules & regulation of research work , etc. which was denied by CPIO treating it as personal information. The Commission held that the thesis submitted to a University is not private or personal information of the candidate who submitted it, but the property of the University, which has to discuss and decide whether it deserves the award of Ph D or not. It is not third party information. Moreover, there is a public interest in knowing the originality of otherwise of the thesis, especially when a serious allegation of appropriating the research work is made by the co-researcher, it is the duty of the academic institution to clear the allegation after due verification. The Commission directed the CPIO, to furnish the copy of the thesis of Ms. Anchal Sharma to appellant on collecting the costs of copying.
102	CIC/SA/A/2014/001377 (207.57 KB)	25 Mar, 2015	Devidayal Sharma Vs. PIO, O/o Dy. Controller The appellant sought to know the GPF statements for the year 1996-1997 ad 1997-98 of GPF Account of one Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik. The CPIO furnished some information without seeking third party approval. The Commission held that it is surprised to know how CPIO had given personal information of Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik without following procedure of section 11 of the RTI Act. He should have taken consent of Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik before disclosing the information. The Commission, therefore, directed the PIO to show cause why maximum penalty could not be imposed against him for disclosing personal information violating the procedure described by RTI Act.
103	CIC/MP/A/2014/000950 (287.70 KB)	24 Mar, 2015	Pawan Kumar Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sriganganagar The appellant sought information regarding names, designations & addresses of the officers who were the members of interview board for selecting candidates appearing for the post of safaikaramchari. The commission held that the residential address of the selected candidates is personal information and providing this information to the appellant would be an intrusion of the privacy of these candidates.
104	CIC/SH/A/2014/000377 (310.18 KB)	19 Mar, 2015	Indravali Singh Vs. CPIO, Central Bank of India, Varanasi The appellant sought information regarding the certificates of educational qualification submitted by the third party employee concerned at the time of his appointment. The Commission held that going by the stand taken by the Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission v Gourhari Kamila, information regarding certificates of education qualification, cannot be provided to the Appellant.
105	CIC/SH/A/2014/000560 (207.91 KB)	18 Mar, 2015	Raj Kumar Vs. CPIO, Bank of India, Jharkhand The appellant fsought copies of various documents concerning the loan of one Sh. Prahalad Prasad Kushwah and Sh. Govind Prasad Kushwaha in connection with disciplinary proceedings. The CPIO denied the information under sections 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted under regulations, which prescribe the process of proceedings, such as the documents that can be disclosed to the officer proceeded against, in conformity with the norms of justice and fair play. The Appellant could have obtained the documents, sought by him in his RTI application, during the enquiry proceedings. The CIC did not see any reason to permit disclosure of the documents.

91

CIC/KY/A/2015/001155
(166.57 KB) pdf icon

25 Feb, 2016

P. C. Pande Vs. DDA, LIG Branch (Housing), New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — Section 8(2) — Public Interest — the Commission held that it has been submitted by Asst. Director & PIC), that it is a common terrace and as per rule, the common terrace is to be used by all allottees of the Flats of the same Block as such, the issues are totally covered by the Public Interest as defined under section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which entitle all allottees to use the common terrace. The respondent's responses are not legally tenable and deserve to be quashed and set aside. The appellant has been deprived by the respondents deliberately from having the benefits of the RTI Act, even after lapse of more than six months period thus, the respondents have defeated the very purpose of the RTI Act. The respondents are directed to provide the complete and categorical information.

92

CIC/MP/A/2015/001852
(52.07 KB) pdf icon

22 Feb, 2016

Rameshwar Dayal Sharma vs State Bank of India, Dehradun

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents to deny the information with regard to point 1 of the RTI application seeking marital status and the names of the wives of the Manger (Security). As regards the salary and allowances of the officials were concerned.

The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the entitlement of salary and allowances.

93

CIC/MP/A/2015/001592
(47.26 KB) pdf icon

18 Feb, 2016

R.V. Kamraj vs State Bank of India, Chennai

Section 8(l)(j) Personal Information
The Commission held that the respondents cannot provide the appellant any information with respect to the loan account of their customer as long as the appellant does not provide any evidence of his being the legal heir of his father's property. The information being sought is third party information and being held by the respondents in fiduciary capacity. The denial of information, therefore, u/s 8(I)(e) and (j) is found to be appropriate at this stage.

94

CIC/MP/A/2015/901418
(90.67 KB) pdf icon

10 Feb, 2016

Nihar Panda vs National Commission for Women, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information

The Commission held that the copy of the review petition filed by the NCW before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of section 8(1)() of the RTI Act as the appellant was not a party to the petition and the disclosure of which would reveal the particulars of the petitioner's wife, which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

The Commission further held that it disagrees with the decision of the respondents and observed that the appellant's RTI application was replied to by the FAA at appellate stage. The CPIO has failed Right to Information Reporter - 2016 May to respond to the RTI application, therefore, issued show cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO to explain the reasons why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for not responding the RTI application.

95

CIC/VS/A/2014/003653
(445.95 KB) pdf icon

28 Jan, 2016

Sunil Kumar Vs. O/o ADCP (I) cum PIC), North West District, Delhi

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information the Commission held that in this matter, the appellant has not been able to establish what public interest would be served by the disclosure of the information. The disclosure of personal information related to a third party is exempted under section of the RTI Act, hence, the information sought by the appellant cannot be provided.

96

CIC/SH/A/2014/002807
(209.80 KB) pdf icon

20 Jan, 2016

Siti Kantha Chatterjee Vs. United Bank Of India, Kolkata

Section 8(1)(j)-Personal Information the Respondents stated that as per their records, the loan about which information has been sought was given to a third party and the property pledged for the loan belongs to the borrower the Commission held that there is no ground to reveal the information sought by the Appellant, and upheld the decision of the CPIO to deny the information under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

97

CIC/SH/A/2014/002524
(313.78 KB) pdf icon

05 Jan, 2016

Goutam Roy Vs. Dena Bank, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information the Commission held that the appellant has not established any larger public interest. Mere unsubstantiated allegation of corruption cannot become the ground Of larger public interest, therefore, the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in this case is upheld.

98

CIC/BS/A/2014/001310/7739
(48.12 KB) pdf icon

29 May, 2015

B. N. Singh Vs. CPIO & Assistant Director, ESIC

The appellant filed sought various information regarding a particular contractor. The PIO denied the information as it is personal in nature, relates to third party and if disclosed would cause unwanted invasion of his privacy and will also harm his competitive position and no public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to the disclosure.
The Commission held that the Information relating to the affairs of a private entity the disclosure of which can possibly have an adverse effect on the competitive position of the entity, is exempt under section 8(l)(d) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information relating to individuals and unincorporated entities. The basic protection from disclosure afforded by virtue of these statutory exemptions cannot be lifted or disturbed unléss the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'.

99

CIC/MP/A/2014/000564
(89.73 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2015

Rahul Gupta State Bank of India, Mumbai

The appellant sought information regarding marks obtained by him in the interview/written examination for the post of Assistant Manager, details/list of marks awarded in written examination and in interview to all the general category candidates called for the interview but was denied the information on the ground of its being personal information of the third party and thus exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The CIC held that the public authority has to change its mind set and tune them to the new regime of disclosure of information and should realise that the present era is of transparency and previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place in larger public interest. The Commission directed the respondents to provide aggregate marks obtained by the selected candidates of general category in the above mentioned examination including cut off marks.

100

CIC/MP/A/2014/000927
(189.54 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2015

Asif Hussain Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad, Gulbarga

The appellant sought entire file documents of housing loan given to one Smt. Rahmatunnisa. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on the ground of its being third party information. The respondent stated that the appellant was neither a guarantor nor a borrower in this loan account, therefore it was personal information of the third party who was their customer.

The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.

101

CIC/SA/A/2014/001213
(290.88 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2015

Meeta Sharma Vs. PIO, ARID Forest Research Institution

The appellant sought copy of minutes of meeting of pre-thesis submission seminar of Ms. Anchal Sharma, copy of her thesis, all correspondence of research work since inception till date, rules & regulation of research work , etc. which was denied by CPIO treating it as personal information.

The Commission held that the thesis submitted to a University is not private or personal information of the candidate who submitted it, but the property of the University, which has to discuss and decide whether it deserves the award of Ph D or not. It is not third party information. Moreover, there is a public interest in knowing the originality of otherwise of the thesis, especially when a serious allegation of appropriating the research work is made by the co-researcher, it is the duty of the academic institution to clear the allegation after due verification.

The Commission directed the CPIO, to furnish the copy of the thesis of Ms. Anchal Sharma to appellant on collecting the costs of copying.

102

CIC/SA/A/2014/001377
(207.57 KB) pdf icon

25 Mar, 2015

Devidayal Sharma Vs. PIO, O/o Dy. Controller

The appellant sought to know the GPF statements for the year 1996-1997 ad 1997-98 of GPF Account of one Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik. The CPIO furnished some information without seeking third party approval.

The Commission held that it is surprised to know how CPIO had given personal information of Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik without following procedure of section 11 of the RTI Act. He should have taken consent of Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik before disclosing the information. The Commission, therefore, directed the PIO to show cause why maximum penalty could not be imposed against him for disclosing personal information violating the procedure described by RTI Act.

103

CIC/MP/A/2014/000950
(287.70 KB) pdf icon

24 Mar, 2015

Pawan Kumar Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sriganganagar

The appellant sought information regarding names, designations & addresses of the officers who were the members of interview board for selecting candidates appearing for the post of safaikaramchari.

The commission held that the residential address of the selected candidates is personal information and providing this information to the appellant would be an intrusion of the privacy of these candidates.

104

CIC/SH/A/2014/000377
(310.18 KB) pdf icon

19 Mar, 2015

Indravali Singh Vs. CPIO, Central Bank of India, Varanasi

The appellant sought information regarding the certificates of educational qualification submitted by the third party employee concerned at the time of his appointment.

The Commission held that going by the stand taken by the Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission v Gourhari Kamila, information regarding certificates of education qualification, cannot be provided to the Appellant.

105

CIC/SH/A/2014/000560
(207.91 KB) pdf icon

18 Mar, 2015

Raj Kumar Vs. CPIO, Bank of India, Jharkhand

The appellant fsought copies of various documents concerning the loan of one Sh. Prahalad Prasad Kushwah and Sh. Govind Prasad Kushwaha in connection with disciplinary proceedings. The CPIO denied the information under sections 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.

The Commission held that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted under regulations, which prescribe the process of proceedings, such as the documents that can be disclosed to the officer proceeded against, in conformity with the norms of justice and fair play. The Appellant could have obtained the documents, sought by him in his RTI application, during the enquiry proceedings. The CIC did not see any reason to permit disclosure of the documents.