के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/SECRL/A/2023/146562 Shesh Bahadur Singh .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Office of the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, South East Central Railway, Raipur – 492008 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date of Decision : 27.01.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 23.08.2023 CPIO replied on : 08.09.2023 First appeal filed on : 26.09.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 26.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.11.2023 Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“संल(cid:4)न क 1 म(cid:8)डल सुर(cid:12)ा आय(cid:16)ु त महोदय जी के िजस प(cid:26) का हवाला सय(cid:16)ु त जाँच (cid:30)रपोट मे !दया गया उस प(cid:26) $ रेसबु /रेलवे आवास/1749 !दनाकं

25.04.2023 कह&ं भी संय(cid:16)ु त जाँच करने के (लऐ DSC Sir Raipur ने आदे(शत नह& +कया था। +फर !दनाकं 11.05.2023 के !दन SI दा(मनी मारद&य से/टेलेम0ट पो1ट रायपुर ने िजस आदेश के तहत क2ड3े ड रेलवे आवास क.179/3 का on duty संय(cid:16)ु त जाँच करने गई थी उस आदेश क5 स6या 78त कापी देने का क9ट कर0।)”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.09.2023 stating as under:

“सचू ना म0 मांगे गये त;य यि(cid:16)तगत सचू ना से सबं=ंधत है। िजसका 7कट +कसी लोक +कया(cid:16)लाप या !हत से सबं=ंधत नह& रखता है। अतः सचू ना का अ=धकार अ=ध8नयम क5 धारा 8.1 के उपधारा (ञ) के तहत +कसी यि(cid:16)त Dवशषे क5 8नजी

जानकार& उपलFध नह& कराया जा सकता है ।”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.

Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Langiwar, PIO present through Video-

Conference.

Written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.

The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in denying the information.

The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that the CPIO vide its letter dated 08.09.2023 had informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the PIO.

Decision:

The Commission, after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information on his RTI application. On the other hand, the CPIO in his response has categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of a third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not disclosed any larger public interest for seeking third party information.

The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the CPIO that the information sought by the Appellant relates to the personal information of a third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:

“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case