Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 614
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
Before
Mr. Surinder Awasthi (SIC)
Mr. R.I. Singh (CIC)
CC No. 1860 of 2011
Shri Munish Kumar Seth
v.
Public Information Officer o/o the Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot-151203.
{Decided on 04/05/2012}
Right to Information--Information seeker is seeking third party personal information not for any public purpose but for private civil litigation--His request deserves to be rejected.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005, S.2(b)--Public Authority--CMC Ludhiana is a public authority and is directed to appoint, PIO and comply with provisions of the Act. (Para 18)
(B) Right to Information Act, 2005, Ss.18, 19 & 20--Denial of Information of Third party--Information seeker is seeking third party personal information not for any public purpose but for private civil litigation--His request deserves to be rejected.
''In considering whether the public interest is disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party, the public information Officer will have to consider the following :
(i) The objection raised by the third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the information sought for.
(ii) Whether the information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or to wreck vendetta against the third party--In deciding that the profile of person seeking information and his credentials will have to be looked into--If the profile of the person seeking information, in light of other attending circumstances, leads to the construction that under the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score against the third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of the information solicited.
(iii) The Public Information Officer, while dealing with the information relating to or supplied by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become a tool in the hands of a busy body to settle a personal score''. (Para 17)
1. The present complaint case has been filed by Shri Munish Kumar Seth against the PIO/Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (University) for non-furnishing of the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. To fully appreciate the background of this case, facts may be recapitulated. The present complaint –Shri Munish Kumar Seth had originally moved three applications to the PIO/Director, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana (CMC) seeking some personal information in respect of an employee namely Shri Ashwani Sehgal, Steno in the Department of Ophthalmology. Specifically, the following queries were asked:-
(i) Certified copy of Attendance Register in respect ofSh. Ashwani Sehgal, Steno, Eye Hospital, CMC Ludhiana for the dates 31.01.2007, 26.02.2007, 02.04.2007, 04.07.2007 & 06.02.2010.
(ii) Copy of joining report of Ashwani Sehgal in the office of CMC, Ludhiana.
(iii) Detail of monthly salary of Ashwani Sehgal.
(iv) Whether his post is pensionable or not?
His request for information was denied by CMC on the ground that it is not a public authority within the meaning of Act ibid. Aggrieved, the information-seeker had approached the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act and his complaint was listed as CC-454/2011. During the hearing of the case before the Commission, CMC reiterated its stand that it is a private registered society and does not receive any financial assistance from Government. Accepting this plea of the respondent, complaint case No.CC-454/2011 was closed. However, as the information-seeker had submitted that CMC is affiliated to Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, it was ordered the University may procure the information from the respondent CMC, if it has the requist powers under its statute.
3. Based on these observation in the order dated 31.3.2011 in CC-454/2011, the information-seeker Shri Munish Kumar Seth moved a fresh application dated 9.4.2011 to the PIO/Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot seeking the very information which he had earlier sought from CMC. The University wrote a letter bearing No.10-FUHC(RTI)-40/11/9460-61 dated 25.4.2011to CMC that “University is a public authority and CMC though a private body is under access being affiliate with this University as such you are bound to provide information so you are again requested to send the requisite information up to 2.5.2011 by return post.” The CMC however did not furnish the requested information to the University. Consequently the University also did not provide the information. Aggrieved, the information-seeker has once again moved the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act, impleading PIO/Registrar Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot as a respondent. His complaint has been listed as CC-1860/2011 and is the subject matter of the present proceedings.
4. The PIO of the University had informed the information-seeker vide a letter dated 14.6.2011 that CMC authorities have declined to give information. It was conveyed that some litigation is pending between the information-seeker and Shri Ashwani Sehgal, Steno in the Ophthalmology Department in the Court of Civil Judge, Dhuri. The third party, Shri Ashwani Sehgal had objected to the disclosure of information, as no public interest is involved. It was further conveyed by the University that they have legally examined the powers of the University to procure the information under Section 2(f) read with Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and the University is of the opinion that it does not enjoy statutory powers under the Baba Farid University Act, to procure this kind of information from CMC. Hence, provisions of Section 2(f) of the Act are not attracted to the facts of the case. Section 2(f) is reproduced below:-
(f ) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contra
