File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000996. Case: Arun Kumar Ojha Vs Central Public Information Officer, Indian Institute of Surgarcane Research. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000996 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: K.P. Yadav, Asstt. Administrative Officer |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11(1), 19(4) |
| Judgement Date | June 08, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner 1. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 8.1.2014 filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding promotion records of one Shri B.D. Singh and some additional information regarding wages etc. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 11.4.2014 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 29.4.2014. 2. The Appellant stated that no response was received by him to the above mentioned RTI application and prayed for imposition of penalty on the CPIO. The Respondents stated that since the information sought was of a confidential nature, no reply was sent by them to the Appellant. We do not agree with the above approach of the Respondents. Even if information sought in an RTI application cannot be provided, the CPIO is duty bound to send a reply to the applicant, citing the specific section of the RTI Act, under which information is being denied. The Respondents should keep the above in mind in future. In so far as the information sought is concerned, the Appellant sought, inter alia, the promotion records of Shri B.D. Singh, a third party employee of the public authority. In this context, we note the following observation made by the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 8.7.2014 in THDC India Limited v. R.K. Raturi [W.P. (C) 903/2013]:-- "13. Consequently, this Court is of the view that ACR grading/ratings as also the marks given to the candidates based on the said ACR grading/ratings and their interview marks contained in the DPC proceedings can be disclosed only to the concerned employee and not to any other employee as that would constitute third party information. This court is also of the opinion that third party information can only be disclosed if a finding of a larger public interest being involved is given by CIC and further if third party procedure as prescribed under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act is followed." The Appellant has... |
To continue reading
Request your trial