welcome to Personal Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
106	CIC/MP/A/2014/000930 (114.73 KB)	17 Mar, 2015	Ravindra Nath Tripathy Vs. State Bank of Inida, Patna The appellant sought information about certain pension account, which the CPIO denied treating the same as third party information. The FAA concurred with the decision of the CPIO. The appellant stated that the requested information related to his uncle who had expired and was issueless. The CIC held that the appellant is entitled for information in case he was nominated by his uncle or had produced succession certificate to the respondents, however the information cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of sections 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act as he is neither the nominee nor he produced any succession certificate in his favour. The decision of respondents was upheld.
107	CIC/MP/A/2014/001008 (189.42 KB)	16 Mar, 2015	Avinash Prabhakar Kaplay Vs. LIC of India, Nagpur The appellant sought copy of policy proposal form, documents submitted for death claim and any change in nomination on the life of particular person. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, on the basis of this being a third party information. The commission upheld the decision of the CPIO.
108	CIC/YA/A/2014/000517 (103.29 KB)	16 Mar, 2015	D.P Majhi Vs. CPIO, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways The Appellant sought information regarding irregularities of recruitment to the post of DGM (tech), copy of inquiry report and copies of communications made with the CVC and the replies received. The PIO informed that the matter is exempt from disclosure under sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that the information was related to him, so the same should have been provided to him The CIC held that the file notings are open and not fiduciary or personal in nature. The respondent’s contention is not correct i.e. the file noting are internal communication and not accessible under the RTI Act. The commission directed the respondents to provide the information to the appellant, to the extent not already provided in relation to his RTI application, after severing names of officers who wrote the notes or made entries in the concerned files.
109	CIC/MP/A/2014/001011 (89.80 KB)	16 Mar, 2015	Narayanswamy Vs. LIC of India, Bangalore The appellant sought certified copies of all the documents pertaining to medical record of his deceased wife who was an ex-employee of LIC of India and had got treatment at KIMS, Institute of Nephrology and K C General Hospital, Bangalore. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1) (j) Act and stated that there was suit going on between the appellant and the mother of the deceased for the succession certificate which had not been finalized till date, therefore in those circumstances they treated the information as personal. The Commission held that the appellant is not the nominee or successor, the documents relating to her cannot be provided to him being personal information of the deceased employee of LIC of India. The Commission upheld their decision.
110	CIC/BS/A/2014/000653 (46.73 KB)	02 Mar, 2015	C. Sathish Vs. CPIO & Superintendent, RMS, Chennai The appellant sought copy of application, marital status, permanent & temporary address declared by Ms. Surekha, wife of the appellant. The CPIO denied the information after following the third party procedure. CIC upheld the decision of CPIO stating that in a privae dispute between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under section 8 (1) (j) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petition is able to justify as to how such disclosure would be in public interest.
111	CIC/MP/A/2014/000747 (87.91 KB)	23 Feb, 2015	Kishan Kumar Vs. PNB, Alwar The request for certified copy of Receipt and Dispatch Register of correspondence from 1.1.2010 to 10.09.2013 was denied by the CPIO and FAA under section 8 (1) (j) as both the registers have the names and addresses of customers. The Commission upheld the decision of CPIO/FAA.
112	CIC/SA/A/2014/000433 (497.01 KB)	03 Feb, 2015	Prashansa Sharma Vs. Delhi Transco Limited The appellant sought to know details of property of her husband and other income / property related information. The CIC held that every spouse has a right to information about income, assets, investments from the other spouse in so far as claim of maintenance from the other spouse whether employed by Government or not. It was also held that though the information falls under the category of private information under 8 (1) (j) generally, the information about a spouse happened to be public servant sought by a victimised spouse shall be disclosed in larger public interest of securing the lives of deserted wives.
113	CIC/MP/A/2014/000362 (122.74 KB)	09 Jan, 2015	Deepak Khemka Vs. RBI The appellant complained that full information sought by him has not been provided by CPIO. The respondents informed that information has been furnished after applying severability to certain portion as it contains information obtained as part of due diligence and has been made available to RBI in a fiduciary capacity as well as personal information. The names of individuals, addresses, property details and figures, etc., which was exempted, have been blocked out. The CIC accepted the submission of the respondents that the information if not related to the appellant cannot be provided under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the Act. The Commission did not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the respondents.
114	CIC/MP/A/2014/000535 (89.25 KB)	06 Jan, 2015	Ashish Kumar Vs. SBI, Delhi The appellant sought details of two bank accounts pertaining to his grandfather and grandmother. CPIO and FAA maintained that the information will be provided to the legal heir, who produces valid proof of his/her being the legal heirship/successor of the deceased. At the time of hearing it was also informed that the appellant was not the nominee and that the information sought for was clearly third party information held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and involving commercial confidence and was exempt under the Act. The CIC upheld the decision of the respondents.
115	CIC/MP/A/2014/000568 (288.36 KB)	06 Jan, 2015	Manish Sharma Vs. LIC of India, New Delhi The appellant sought name and personal details of an LIC agent who deposited a particular LIC policy, etc. CPIO denied the information treating it as personal information and also information held by LIC in fiduciary capacity. The decision was upheld by CIC.
116	CIC/BS/A/2014/000225 (70.57 KB)	01 Jan, 2015	Rohit Sabharwal Vs. BSNL Appellant sought details of leave, foreign travel, source of funding foreign trip, etc in respect of some of the employees of BSNL. CPIO’s decision to hold that copy of passport, sources of funding of travel, boarding & lodging, etc. Is personal information and is exempt under Section 8 (1) (j) is in order.
117	CIC/BS/A/2014/000818 CIC/BS/A/2014/001164 (51.56 KB)	01 Jan, 2015	K.S. Jain Vs. CPIO, BSNL The appellant who was also complainant against the corruption of an officer sought copies of final orders in the disciplinary case concluded. CIC held that the information sought by the complaint/appellant relates to a third party and the action taken by the Department is information of personal nature and as no larger public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant, exempt from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.
118	CIC/MP/A/2014/000443 (288.61 KB)	02 Dec, 2014	Anand Krishan Maitin Vs. State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi The appellant, who is also an investor in the form of shares in M/s Milkfood Limited, sought information related to a loan given by the bank to M/s Milkfood Limited. The information included departmental note approving the loan, details of property mortgaged, valuation report, etc. The respondents denied the information about the loan account saying that it was held by the bank in fiduciary capacity. The CIC found that the information cannot be given to the appellant as it is covered by section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of the Act and upheld the decision of the respondents.
119	CIC/SS/A/2012/002765 (84.50 KB)	30 Oct, 2013	Shamim vs Delhi Police-Crime Branch The appellant filed an RTI application seeking copy of the Roznamcha (daily diary) for the date 7.4.2010 and Original Maalkhana Register No 19A and 19B dated8.4.2010 for Okhla Industrial Area Police Station – the CPIO denied the information sought under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - the appellant as submitted that the information sought is related to his own case - the restricted to only his case. Decision The Commission held that it is of the view that the appellant should have specified the case with respect to which the information is sought. The photocopy of the daily diary or Maalkhana register for the entire day will contain details with regard to other cases/person as well which is barred under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, DD entries made on 7.4.2010 and entries made in Maalkhana register on 8.4.2010 , if any, with regard to appellant's own case are to be provided to him.
120	CIC/LS/A/2013/001317-SS (414.37 KB)	22 Oct, 2013	Sarika Jain vs National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) The appellant filed an RTI application with the CPIO, NTPC seeking information against 8 points, including list of projects assigned by REC to NTPC for RGGVY project under 10th and 11th Plan for state of Orissa; names of the contractors to whom the RGGVY contract were awarded by the NTPC; contractual L2 network vis a vis actual achievement of all awarded projects for the various district of Orissa; revised L2 network vis a vis actual achievement and soon -the information was denied under sections 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent stated the information in question i.e. copy of contractual L2 network vis a vis actual achievement of all awarded projects for the various districts of Orissa and copy of Revised L2 network vis a vis actual achievement is a part of their contract which contains the activities and sequence of activities. Accordingly to them, this information is held by them in their fiduciary capacity which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Decision The Commission held that the information in question here is basically "targets and achievements" of the public authority which cannot either be construed as information relating to 'personal information' of third party, or information held by the public authority in its 'fiduciary capacity'. The exemption claimed by the respondent under section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act from disclosure of the present information is not tenable.

106

CIC/MP/A/2014/000930
(114.73 KB) pdf icon

17 Mar, 2015

Ravindra Nath Tripathy Vs. State Bank of Inida, Patna

The appellant sought information about certain pension account, which the CPIO denied treating the same as third party information. The FAA concurred with the decision of the CPIO. The appellant stated that the requested information related to his uncle who had expired and was issueless.

The CIC held that the appellant is entitled for information in case he was nominated by his uncle or had produced succession certificate to the respondents, however the information cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of sections 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act as he is neither the nominee nor he produced any succession certificate in his favour. The decision of respondents was upheld.

107

CIC/MP/A/2014/001008
(189.42 KB) pdf icon

16 Mar, 2015

Avinash Prabhakar Kaplay Vs. LIC of India, Nagpur

The appellant sought copy of policy proposal form, documents submitted for death claim and any change in nomination on the life of particular person. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, on the basis of this being a third party information.

The commission upheld the decision of the CPIO.

108

CIC/YA/A/2014/000517
(103.29 KB) pdf icon

16 Mar, 2015

D.P Majhi Vs. CPIO, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways

The Appellant sought information regarding irregularities of recruitment to the post of DGM (tech), copy of inquiry report and copies of communications made with the CVC and the replies received. The PIO informed that the matter is exempt from disclosure under sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that the information was related to him, so the same should have been provided to him The CIC held that the file notings are open and not fiduciary or personal in nature. The respondent’s contention is not correct i.e. the file noting are internal communication and not accessible under the RTI Act.

The commission directed the respondents to provide the information to the appellant, to the extent not already provided in relation to his RTI application, after severing names of officers who wrote the notes or made entries in the concerned files.

109

CIC/MP/A/2014/001011
(89.80 KB) pdf icon

16 Mar, 2015

Narayanswamy Vs. LIC of India, Bangalore

The appellant sought certified copies of all the documents pertaining to medical record of his deceased wife who was an ex-employee of LIC of India and had got treatment at KIMS, Institute of Nephrology and K C General Hospital, Bangalore. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1) (j) Act and stated that there was suit going on between the appellant and the mother of the deceased for the succession certificate which had not been finalized till date, therefore in those circumstances they treated the information as personal.

The Commission held that the appellant is not the nominee or successor, the documents relating to her cannot be provided to him being personal information of the deceased employee of LIC of India. The Commission upheld their decision.

110

CIC/BS/A/2014/000653
(46.73 KB) pdf icon

02 Mar, 2015

C. Sathish Vs. CPIO & Superintendent, RMS, Chennai

The appellant sought copy of application, marital status, permanent & temporary address declared by Ms. Surekha, wife of the appellant.

The CPIO denied the information after following the third party procedure.

CIC upheld the decision of CPIO stating that in a privae dispute between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under section 8 (1) (j) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petition is able to justify as to how such disclosure would be in public interest.

111

CIC/MP/A/2014/000747
(87.91 KB) pdf icon

23 Feb, 2015

Kishan Kumar Vs. PNB, Alwar

The request for certified copy of Receipt and Dispatch Register of correspondence from 1.1.2010 to 10.09.2013 was denied by the CPIO and FAA under section 8 (1) (j) as both the registers have the names and addresses of customers. The Commission upheld the decision of CPIO/FAA.

112

CIC/SA/A/2014/000433
(497.01 KB) pdf icon

03 Feb, 2015

Prashansa Sharma Vs. Delhi Transco Limited

The appellant sought to know details of property of her husband and other income / property related information.

The CIC held that every spouse has a right to information about income, assets, investments from the other spouse in so far as claim of maintenance from the other spouse whether employed by Government or not. It was also held that though the information falls under the category of private information under 8 (1) (j) generally, the information about a spouse happened to be public servant sought by a victimised spouse shall be disclosed in larger public interest of securing the lives of deserted wives.

113

CIC/MP/A/2014/000362
(122.74 KB) pdf icon

09 Jan, 2015

Deepak Khemka Vs. RBI

The appellant complained that full information sought by him has not been provided by CPIO.

The respondents informed that information has been furnished after applying severability to certain portion as it contains information obtained as part of due diligence and has been made available to RBI in a fiduciary capacity as well as personal information. The names of individuals, addresses, property details and figures, etc., which was exempted, have been blocked out.

The CIC accepted the submission of the respondents that the information if not related to the appellant cannot be provided under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the Act. The Commission did not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the respondents.

114

CIC/MP/A/2014/000535
(89.25 KB) pdf icon

06 Jan, 2015

Ashish Kumar Vs. SBI, Delhi

The appellant sought details of two bank accounts pertaining to his grandfather and grandmother.

CPIO and FAA maintained that the information will be provided to the legal heir, who produces valid proof of his/her being the legal heirship/successor of the deceased. At the time of hearing it was also informed that the appellant was not the nominee and that the information sought for was clearly third party information held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and involving commercial confidence and was exempt under the Act.

The CIC upheld the decision of the respondents.

115

CIC/MP/A/2014/000568
(288.36 KB) pdf icon

06 Jan, 2015

Manish Sharma Vs. LIC of India, New Delhi

The appellant sought name and personal details of an LIC agent who deposited a particular LIC policy, etc.

CPIO denied the information treating it as personal information and also information held by LIC in fiduciary capacity.

The decision was upheld by CIC.

116

CIC/BS/A/2014/000225
(70.57 KB) pdf icon

01 Jan, 2015

Rohit Sabharwal Vs. BSNL

Appellant sought details of leave, foreign travel, source of funding foreign trip, etc in respect of some of the employees of BSNL.

CPIO’s decision to hold that copy of passport, sources of funding of travel, boarding & lodging, etc. Is personal information and is exempt under Section 8 (1) (j) is in order.

117

CIC/BS/A/2014/000818 CIC/BS/A/2014/001164
(51.56 KB) pdf icon

01 Jan, 2015

K.S. Jain Vs. CPIO, BSNL

The appellant who was also complainant against the corruption of an officer sought copies of final orders in the disciplinary case concluded.

CIC held that the information sought by the complaint/appellant relates to a third party and the action taken by the Department is information of personal nature and as no larger public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant, exempt from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.

118

CIC/MP/A/2014/000443
(288.61 KB) pdf icon

02 Dec, 2014

Anand Krishan Maitin Vs. State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi

The appellant, who is also an investor in the form of shares in M/s Milkfood Limited, sought information related to a loan given by the bank to M/s Milkfood Limited. The information included departmental note approving the loan, details of property mortgaged, valuation report, etc.

The respondents denied the information about the loan account saying that it was held by the bank in fiduciary capacity.

The CIC found that the information cannot be given to the appellant as it is covered by section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of the Act and upheld the decision of the respondents.

119

CIC/SS/A/2012/002765
(84.50 KB) pdf icon

30 Oct, 2013

Shamim vs Delhi Police-Crime Branch

The appellant filed an RTI application seeking copy of the Roznamcha (daily diary) for the date 7.4.2010 and Original Maalkhana Register No 19A and 19B dated8.4.2010 for Okhla Industrial Area Police Station – the CPIO denied the information sought under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - the appellant as submitted that the information sought is related to his own case - the restricted to only his case.
Decision
The Commission held that it is of the view that the appellant should have specified the case with respect to which the information is sought. The photocopy of the daily diary or Maalkhana register for the entire day will contain details with regard to other cases/person as well which is barred under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, DD entries made on 7.4.2010 and entries made in Maalkhana register on 8.4.2010 , if any, with regard to appellant's own case are to be provided to him.

120

CIC/LS/A/2013/001317-SS
(414.37 KB) pdf icon

22 Oct, 2013

Sarika Jain vs National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC)

The appellant filed an RTI application with the CPIO, NTPC seeking information against 8 points, including list of projects assigned by REC to NTPC for RGGVY project under 10th and 11th Plan for state of Orissa; names
of the contractors to whom the RGGVY contract were awarded by the NTPC; contractual L2 network vis a vis actual achievement of all awarded projects for the various district of Orissa; revised L2 network vis a vis actual achievement and soon -the information was denied under sections 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent stated the information in question i.e. copy of contractual L2 network vis a vis actual achievement of all awarded projects for the various districts of Orissa and copy of Revised L2 network vis a vis actual achievement is a part of their contract which contains the activities and sequence of activities. Accordingly to them, this information is held by them in their fiduciary capacity which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
Decision
The Commission held that the information in question here is basically "targets and achievements" of the public authority which cannot either be construed as information relating to 'personal information' of third party, or information held by the public authority in its 'fiduciary capacity'. The exemption claimed by the respondent under section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act from disclosure of the present information is not tenable.