Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001360-BJ. Case: Vandana Hemani Vs CPIO & ITO-1(1) and Ors.. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001360-BJ |
| Judges | Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j) |
| Judgement Date | April 18, 2017 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner FACTS: 1. The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the total section wise deductions permitted to Mr. Lalit Hemani S/o. Shri Bali Ram Hemani during the Financial years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, net Income Tax year-wise paid by him, the TDS deposited in these Financial Years, in case no ITR was filed by him, etc. 2. The CPIO vide its letter dated 04.04.2016 denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 25.04.2016 concurred with the reply of the CPIO. HEARING: Facts emerging during the hearing: 3. The following were present: Appellant: Mr. Govind Ram Sobhani (M: 9425608258) Appellant's representative through VC; Respondent: Mr. Jiten Kumar Sahu, ITO Ward 1(1), Raipur (M: 7587190155) through VC; 4. The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of RTI application and stated that no information had been provided, till date. The Appellant representative informed the Commission that a case under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was pending in the family Court and the ITR details of the Appellant's husband was sought to submit as evidence in the Court. He took strong objection to the recourse of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 undertaken by the CPIO in his letter dated 04.04.2016. The FAA vide its order dated 25.04.2016 had denied disclosure of information since no larger public interest was served in disclosing such information pertaining to the third party. During the course of hearing the Respondent submitted that said information could not be disclosed to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 since disclosure of information sought would cause unwarranted breach into the privacy of the individual. It was further clarified that in the instant matter the Appellant's representative was not able to substantiate the Appellant's claim for the larger public interest involved in her case. The Commission observed that the CPIO vide its letter dated... |
To continue reading
Request your trial