2015 (2) TMI 736 - Commission - Indian Laws

Denial of information sought under RTI Act - Officer against whom information is sought appointed as officer incharge - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - When there was a separate CPIO for Administration Division, viz Shri Rakesh Kumar, SO (Admn.), the decision regarding providing appropriate response to the applicant should have been taken by the concerned CPIO to whom the RTI application should have been transferred by the Nodal CPIO in the first instance. Merely because the information sought for pertains to the personal file of Nodal CPIO while it has been created and was under the custody of the Administration Division does not empower the Nodal CPIO to deal with the case himself and give a reply to the appellant without transferring the matter to the concerned CPIO in Administration Division. The jurisdiction of the Nodal CPIO as mentioned on the website does not relate to matters relating to Administration and Establishment. Under the circumstances, I find force in the submissions of the appellant that the nodal CPIO should not have handled the RTI requests. Regarding the exemption claimed by the Nodal CPIO on note sheets Nos. 18, 19 & 23 and the correspondence pages mentioned in his letter dated 20-11-2013, I have gone through the file. In my opinion, note sheets pages 18 & 19 regarding sanction of leave to Shri Shreyaskar and leave with LTC and sending a copy of NOC conveyed to Shri Shreyaskar by MoS(PI) for pursuing Ph.D on part time basis to Shri Shreyaskar for compliance of the conditions mentioned therein are not information which can be exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act as this information is related to routine matters of Administration in the functioning of the Government including the Commission. Pages 45 to 57 of the correspondence portion is the APAR of Shri Shreyaskar and protected from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) being personal information, disclosure of which has no public interest. Correspondence at pages 28 & 29 relates to property return of Shri Shreyaskar which is also protected under Section 8(1)(j). However, as mentioned by the Nodal CPIO in his letter dated 20-11-2013, the information is already available on the website of the MoSPI. Note sheet at page 23 is regarding intimation of property transaction of Shri Shreyaskar which is again protected under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. - In the light of the above position, Shri S.K. Rabbani, CPIO, CIC, is directed to provide the Information as mentioned within 10 working days from date of receipt of this order - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nodal CPIO's handling of RTI application
2. Refusal to disclose specific information
3. Exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act

Analysis:

Issue 1: Nodal CPIO's handling of RTI application
The appellant raised concerns regarding the Nodal CPIO's involvement in handling the RTI application, stating that the information directly related to him. The appellant argued that the Nodal CPIO should have refrained from dealing with the application, citing a violation of principles of natural justice. The Commission agreed with the appellant, noting that the concerned CPIO from the Administration Division should have handled the case instead. The Nodal CPIO's jurisdiction did not extend to matters related to Administration and Establishment, and the Commission found merit in the appellant's submissions regarding the improper handling of the RTI request.

Issue 2: Refusal to disclose specific information
The appellant highlighted that certain specific information requested under the RTI application was not provided adequately. The CPIO's response was deemed insufficient as it did not address the appellant's request for specific documents. Additionally, the CPIO refused to disclose certain pages of the file, citing personal information exemptions. However, the Commission found that some of the information, such as routine administrative matters and property returns, did not qualify for exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the CPIO was directed to provide the requested information within a specified timeframe.

Issue 3: Exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act
The Nodal CPIO had claimed exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for certain note sheets and correspondence pages. The Commission reviewed the content of the exempted pages and determined that while some information, like personal property transactions and APAR, could be protected under the exemption clause, routine administrative matters did not fall under this category. As a result, the CPIO was instructed to provide the non-exempt information to the appellant within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the Commission disposed of the appeal, directing the CPIO to provide the requested information within a specified timeframe. The appellant was also informed of the option to appeal further if desired.