6.3 LS-22052009-04 - MH CIC's 04 Decisions in S. Girish R Deshpande Cases at 22.05.2009 - 09.10.2024
Uploaded by
Rudra Pratap Singh6.3 LS-22052009-04 - MH CIC's 04 Decisions in S. Girish R Deshpande Cases at 22.05.2009 - 09.10.2024
Uploaded by
Rudra Pratap Singh223GRDeshpandeVsRPFCNagpur22 05 13 12:12 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000223
Appellant: Shri G.R. Deshpande
Public Authority: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Nagpur
(through Shri M.P. Varghese, RPFC, Gde.I)
Date of Hearing: 22/05/2009
Date of Decision: 22/05/2009
FACTS:-
By his letter of 27/08/2008, the Appellant had requested for information on 15
paras in regard to Shri Anant Baliram Lute, Enforcement Officer, earlier posted as
Enforcement Officer in Sub Regional Office, Akola (presently posted in Madhya
Pradesh). The CPIO had responded ho him vide letter dated 15/09/2008 wherein
information in regard to paras 5 & 11 was granted.
2. Dissatisfied with the decision of CPIO, the Appellant had filed first Appeal. The
Appellate Authority vide decision dated 25/11/2008, had upheld the decision of the
CPIO.
3. The present Appeal is directed against the orders of the CPIO and the AA.
4. The matter was heard on 22/05/2009. The Appellant along with Advocate Shri
A.P. Wachasunder appeared before the Commission. The Public Authority is
represented by the officer named above. The parties were heard. Shri M.P. Varghese,
has no objection to providing further information in regard to paras 1,2,3 (only posting
details), 10, 12, 13 (only copy of the order of posting). He, however, is not agreeable to
provide information in regard to other paras.
5. Advocate Wachasunder has made a strong plea for disclosure of information on
the remaining paras. His first and foremost submission is that information has been
wrongly denied in terms of clause (j) of section 8(1) as information can be denied only
when it has no relationship with public activity or interest. Shri Lute, being an
Enforcement Officer, has been vested with the authority to prosecute employers for their
alleged violation of law and, therefore, his actions fall in the domain of ‘public activity’
and evoke public ‘interest’. He has also assailed the denial of information on the ground
of ‘unwarranted invasion of privacy’. It is his plea that a true meaning needs to be
assigned to this expression. As Shri Lute is an Enforcement Officer, the society expects
him to to be of transparent integrity and conduct, and therefore, information sought by the
Appellant cannot be construed as unwarranted invasion of privacy.
223GRDeshpandeVsRPFCNagpur22 05 13 12:12 2
6. He would further submit that as per clause proviso appended to clause (j), any
information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature, the same
cannot be denied to the Appellant. His poser is : can this information be denied to the
Parliament or a State Legislature ? He answers this in the negative and pleads for
disclosure.
7. He would further submit that the Appellate Authority has passed a cryptic order
dated 25/11/2008 expressing his subjective satisfaction and not objective satisfaction in
the sense that no detailed grounds have been adduced to arrive at the given conclusion.
He would, therefore, plead that AA’s order is not sustainable in law.
8. He would also submit that information sought by him cannot be said to be
personal information in terms of the laws enacted in other countries such as USA,
Australia, Newzeeland etc. where the personal information is restricted to religious
beliefs, ideological ideas, personal preferences and tastes, political beliefs, physical and
mental health, sexual life, partnership of a Trade Union, if any, or alleged commission of
any offence etc. According to him, his case does not fall in any of the categories
mentioned above.
9. His last submission is that, as per clause (j) of section 8(1), denial of information
in larger public interest is to be established by the authority holding back the information.
It is not for the Appellant to establish larger public interest for seeking information.
10. He has also drawn my attention to paras 14 & 15 of the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Bombay High court in Surup Singh Nayak Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007 (4)
MH.h.J) page 573)), wherein, the medical records of a convict were ordered to be
disclosed and the exemption claimed by him under clause (j) was denied.
11. As per contra, the submissions of Shri M.P. Varghese, are as follows:-
(a) His first submission is that, under section 13 of EPF and MP Act, 1952,
Shri Lute has exercised his powers in the matter of inspection of industrial
establishments in the discharge of his duties and taking corrective steps.
He has done this under the direction of his superior officers as per rules
and procedures. Issue of notices by him to the parties concerned is a part
of his legal mandate and he cannot be faulted on that ground.
(b) Secondly, the allegation that he used indecent or abusive language towards
the Appellant is too trite to be agitated before the Commission.
(c) Thirdly, the Appellant is a consultant with various industrial
establishments and there is always a possibility of clash of interest
between him and Shri Lute as they are on the opposite sides of the fence,
as far as their professional commitments go.
(d) It is also his submission that, as per several decisions of this Commission,
personal information has been denied to the Appellants in terms of clause
223GRDeshpandeVsRPFCNagpur22 05 13 12:12 3
(j) of Section 8(1). He has specifically drawn my attention to this
Commission’s Decision in CIC/OK/A/2006/00616 dated 19/03/2007
(Pramod Malhotra Vs. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting), wherein,
such information was denied.
(e) It is also his submission that the Appellant has to establish public interest
in seeking disclosure of information rather than the Public Authority doing
the same in denying the information.
(f) His overall submission is that, no larger public interest is involved in
disclosure of personal information relating to Shri Lute.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges,
prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011 2671 73 53
