के(cid:2)न्ቖኍ(cid:5)यसू(cid:8)चना(cid:11)आय(cid:13)ग Central Information Commission बा(cid:11)बा(cid:11)ग(cid:16)गना(cid:11)थमा(cid:11)ग(cid:19), मानि(cid:20) नारके(cid:11)

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नाईदिtiल्ली(cid:28), New Delhi – 110067 ቛኌ(cid:2)ती(cid:4)य अपी(cid:4)ल सं(cid:11)ख्य(cid:13) / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOSPI/A/2022/153355 Shri Dipankar Mahto … अपी(cid:4)लकती(cid:13)(cid:15)/Appellant VERSUS/बना(cid:13)म PIO, Ministry of Statistics & Programme …्ቚቛኌतीवा(cid:13)दी(cid:22)गण /Respondent Implementation Date of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date of Decision : 03.01.2024 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 26.09.2022 PIO replied on : 29.09.2022 First Appeal filed on : 03.10.2022 First Appellate Order on : 17.10.2022 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.11.2022 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2022 seeking the following information:-

“As per MOSPI letter number A-19018/19/2010-Ad.l dt. 05/04/2019, Ms. Ratna Chaudhari, an officer of Indian Statistical Service was posted at MOSPI from 1/5/10 to 19/1/18. Ratna Chowdhury has lodged multiple criminal cases against me. One of the cases is 117/04/14 at Patiala House court, which is a false Domestic Violence case. I need the following information for defending my false Domestic Violence case lodged by her.

1. The GPF balance at the end of each year during her posting in MOSPI for the years 2010-2018.

As per CIC decision no. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/640904-UM dated 7/6/21, (copy attached) PF details cannot be withheld. So it is earnestly requested not to deny the information that has been asked for.”

The CPIO/Under Secretary, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, vide letter dated 29.09.2022 replied as under:-

“In this context, it may be intimated that the information sought by you under the above RTI application belongs to such information which is exclusively personal to Ms. Ratna Choudhary and not involved any public interest. Further, the disclosure of requisite information may also

1 3 lead to its unwarranted invasion. Hence, it is regretted to inform you that the information sought by you is being denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2022. The FAA/Director, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, vide order dated 17.10.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from CPIO vide letter dated 29.12.2023 reiterating the above facts.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Shiv Balak Verma – CPIO, Dy. Director was present during the hearing.

The Respondents present for hearing submitted that the information sought by the Appellant related to personal information of a third party. Hence, disclosure of the same was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant is not present to buttress his case.

Decision:

Considering the factual position of the appeal at hand, it is noted that the Respondent’s reply is legally appropriate and thus upheld. The Appellant has chosen not to contest the case and has nowhere indicated any larger public interest which will be served by disclosure of such personal information relating to a third party.

In the given circumstances, since the reply sent by the Respondent is found appropriate, no further adjudication is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is thus disposed off.

Heeralal Samariya (ही(cid:28)र(cid:11)ली(cid:11)लीसू(cid:11)मारिरय(cid:11))

Chief Information Commissioner (मा(cid:20)ख्य सू(cid:8)चना(cid:11) आय(cid:20)क्त)

Authenticated true copy (अभि(cid:26)्ቚम(cid:13)भिणती संत्य(cid:13)ቛኌपीती ्ቚቛኌती)

S. K. Chitkara (एसं. क(cid:29). चि(cid: