ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Copy or link to Annual Reports, which were earlier provided on IIMA website but no longer are:

2021-22, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2015-16, 2014-15 All other IIMs provide their annual reports on their websites.

(ii) Pls indicate when the contract for HCP Designs as Master Architect started and ended (Tender attached) (iii) Pls indicate who was in the selection committee and share the related documents.

(iv) Pls indicate whether or not IIMA appointed an expert instead of HCP Designs for repair and maintenance of the campus after their contract ended it.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Point (i) - The link to Annual report is given below: https://fima.ac.in/the-

institute/administration/RII Point (ii) - The LOI was issued on 31/07/2014 and was closed on December 6, 2018 on request of HCP-DPM.

Point (iii) - The documents requested by you fall under fiduciary relationship between IIMA and employee. Hence cannot be provided under section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act 2005.

Point (iv) - IIMA has not appointed another master architect after HCP-DPM.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA’s order dated 09.06.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.07.2023.

5. The appellant attended the hearing in-person; and on behalf of the respondent Shri Harendra Singh, General Manager (Engineering Services and Estate) and Shri Harshit, Assistant General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that she had received the requisite information, however, the names of the members of the Building Committee had been blocked in the documents furnished to her.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the annexures containing the names of the members in the Minutes of the Building Committee held on 03.06.2014 were shared with the appellant after blocking the names of the members, since the said details were exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

8.

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply was given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 ; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name , address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members