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/IRCON/A/2023/149215 Krishna Joshi .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, IRCON LTD, C-4, District Center Saket, New Delhi - 110017 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 07.04.2025 Date of Decision : 23.04.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 05.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 13.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 17.11.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 08.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27.12.2023 Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 05.10.2023 seeking the following information:

“Ms. Iti Matta, a qualified Company Secretary was working in a subsidiary of IRCON International Limited. In this regard the following information may be provided:

1. Appointment Letter issued by IRCON International Limited or its Subsidiary Company.

2. Appointment Letter issued for designating her as a Company Secretary of Subsidiary Company of IRCON International Limited.

3. Letter of Release issued to her by Subsidiary Company of IRCON International Limited on her resignation.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.10.2023 stating as under:

“Being 3rd party information as per RTI Act, 2005, information sought cannot be provided.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.12.2023, held as under.

“I have gone through the information sought by the applicant and reply given by Public Authority vide letter dated 13.10.2023. As per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005, which states that "information 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 may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information," the information sought by the applicant cannot be provided. Since the undersigned is not satisfied with the grounds of appeal, undersigned supports the reply given by the Public Authority. Appeal is disposed of.”

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

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Masood Ahmad, General Manager and HR; and Shri P. V.

Likhar, Manager/HRM, appeared in person.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to third party information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the information sought relates to employment records of a third party, disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and has no apparent public interest as envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant in her RTI application, first appeal and subsequently in the second appeal failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information.

The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter.

In view of the above, the respondent finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी

Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु

Authenticated true