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/INAVY/A/2024/111793 B Malleswara Rao .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, HQ Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam – 530014 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of Decision : 28.08.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 04.12.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.01.2024 First appeal filed on : 25.01.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 14.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.04.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 04.12.2023 seeking the following information:

“Sub: RTI Act, 2005-Application of Dr. B. Malleswara Rao, Supdt. Of Police NC(Retd), Visakhapatnam and Advocate for furnishing certain sought of information-Request -Regarding.

With reference to the subject cited, I, Dr. B. Malleswara Rao, SPNC (Rtd), Visakhapatnam and Advocate AP High Court Amaravathi request your good self to furnish the following certain sought of information. Mr. Mudili Ramarao S/o Late M. Ramumurthy, Now working Naval Dock Yard Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh as caste Bentho Oriya (Scheduled Tribe) community in ST Quota roster appointed in your Waltair Division E.Co.Rly Department. The central Public Information Officer to verified the caste certificate and give a copy of caste certificate of Bentho Oriya (ST) Certified copies of the said information are needed to be furnished.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.01.2024 stating as under:

“In response to your RTI application Naval Dockyard (Visakhapatnam) has intimated that the information sought by you vide RTI application wrt cast certificate is considered as third-party information and cannot be provided.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.01.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 14.03.2024, held as under.

“Your appeals have been examined in accordance with the extant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. You have sought the same information as was sought in the RTI applications. The information sought is considered personal information of third parties, disclosure of which will cause undue invasion of privacy and is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, as per Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, a notice was served to the third parties and they have intimated their unwillingness to disclose the information to you. Therefore, the PIO's response is considered appropriate. No relief is warranted.”

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

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri G.S. Ugandhar Reddy, PIO present through Video-

Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 16.04.2024 is not available on record.

Respondent confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.

7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide their letter dated 11.01.2024, they have categorically 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. The Respondent further apprised the Commission that they have also invoked Section 11 of the RTI Act and notice was served to the third parties and they have intimated their unwillingness to disclose the information to the Appellant.

Decision:

8. It is noted that total number of eight Second Appeals of the same Appellant namely Shri B Malleswara Rao have been listed and heard together in file bearing Nos. CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/107967; CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/117659; CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/117475; CIC/MORLY/A/2024/117399; CIC/LICOI/A/2024/107184; CIC/INAVY/A/