Priya Mishra Vs Central Information Commission

2. Public Information Officer Under Rti Area Manager - Jamuna - Kotma Area, Jamuna - Kotma Area, S.E.C.L. Post Office Jamuna Colliery, District Anupur 484444 (Madhya Pradesh).

¶11

3. First Appellate Public Information Officer / Rti Area Manager - Jamuna Kotma Area, Jamuna Kotma Area, S.E.C.L. Post Office Jamuna Colliery, District Anupur 484444 (Madhaya Pradesh).

¶12

4. Rahul Singh S/o Late Ayay Singh R/o H/13, Hallo Block, Kotma Colliery, Police Station Bhalumara, District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh 484444.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner-in-person	: Ms. Priya Mishra.
For Respondents No.2 & 3	: Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, counsel along
	with Mr. Kunal Athode, counsel

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

29/06/2026

1. Heard.

Digitally DEEPTI signed by JHA DEEPTI JHA

¶21

2

¶22

2. The petitioner is questioning the legality and validity of order dated 13.09.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Central Information Commission while holding that the information, which has been sought for by the petitioner is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘R.T.I. Act’). Further no larger public interest has been invoked by error by the petitioner.

¶23

3. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner-in-person is like that she has filed an application under the R.T.I. Act seeking certain information in respect of respondent No.4, namely Rahul Singh, S/o Late Ajay Kumar Singh, who has been appointed in place of his father in the SECL, Jamuna – Kotma Area. It was urged in the application that respondent No.4/Rahul Singh has screened material facts while getting appointment, as FIR has been lodged against respondent No.4/Rahul Singh by the Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur (C.G.) under Section 294, 323, 506 part ii read with Section 34 of IPC. Further, respondent No.4/Rahul Singh has not disclosed the said fact and has sworn an affidavit on 17.03.2020 stating that no criminal case has been registered against him. Since, respondent No.4/Rahul Singh has given an incorrect affidavit, as such, the petitioner-in-person has filed the application seeking copy of appointment order of respondent No.4/Rahul Singh including the declaration made by him and the affidavit. Earlier also, petition-in-person has filed an application, however, the affidavit of respondent No.4/Rahul Singh has been replaced with the help of other persons, as such she has filed the application for furnishing information in respect of appointment along with documents filed by the respondent No.4, so that appropriate action may be taken against him. The information as sought for by the petitioner-inperson was refused by the by the Public Information Commission Officer stating that the information, which is being sought is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act and as such the personal

¶24

3

¶25

information cannot be given to the petitioner. Against the said reply, as filed by the Public Information Officer, the petitioner has filed by the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority, however, the First Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal while inter alia stating that the information as sought by the petitioner cannot be supplied, as it is exempted from the disclosure under Section8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, petitioner has preferred a second appeal before the Central Information Commission, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2022, while confirming the order passed by the First Appellate Authority stating that the personal information is exempted to be furnished under Section 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act. Hence, this petition.

¶26

4. Petitioner-in-person submits that the First Appellate Authority as well as the Central Information Commission have committed an error of law while dismissing the appeal holding therein that the information is sought by the petitioner is personal information, which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act. It is further argued that since respondent No.4/Rahul Singh has obtained the service while hiding the necessary information and while furnishing the incorrect information on oath, as such the petitioner-in-person has rightly moved an application under the R.T.I. Act seeking information for the public interest. The service, which has been obtained by the respondent No.4/Rahul Singh on compassionate appointment is not in accordance with law. If any illegality has been committed, the petitioner-in-person is having every right to get the information received from the PIO looking to the larger interest of the society and illegality cannot be overlooked by technicalities.

¶27

5. Learned counsel appearing for SECL submits that petitioner-in-person has sought personal information in respect of the respondent No.4/Shri Rahul Singh under the R.T.I. Act regarding his application for dependent employment with declaration and verification forms and affidavit dated 17.03.2020 as well as his appointment order. He further submits that said

¶28

4

¶29

information of respondent No.4/Shri Rahul Singh comes under the purview of "Personal information" which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the R.T.I. Act. It is further submitted that being an Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, respondent No.1 vide Annexure P/1 dated 13.09.2022 has duly considered second appeal moved by the petitioner-in-person and passed the well speaking order in the Second Appeal taking into consideration Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, wherein the statue itself prohibits providing for third party information to the information seeker and uphold the order passed by Public Information Officer, as there is no illegality and perversity in said orders passed by the authorities under the R.T.I. Act, therefore, instant writ petition filed by the petitioner-in-person is liable to be dismissed as there is no substance. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3 would submit that even otherwise the petitionerin-person is being counsel of WP(C) No.3046/2022 (prior to converted as WPC, it was registered as WPS No.238/2022) Poonam Mishra Vs SECL and others, she has filed the documents / annexure relating to the employment of the respondent No.4/Shri Rahul Singh in the said writ petition, meaning thereby she is having all the information of respondent No.4 as sought under the R.T.I. Act in the instant writ petition and on this ground also the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Further, he placed his reliance upon decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra

¶30

Agrawal, passed on 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No.10044 of 2010. It is further submits that appeal has rightly been rejected and there is no merit in the present petition, hence it is liable to rejected.

¶31

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the orders, passed by the authority concerned including the impugned order.

¶32

5

¶33

7. The prime question, which is required to be considered that whether the information comes within the purview of Section 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act or not in order to consider the aforesaid aspect of Section 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act is quoted below:-

¶34

"8. Exemption from disclosure of information –

¶35

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen -

¶36

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

¶37

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."

¶38

8. From perusal of the application, which has been filed under the R.T.I. Act is quiet vivid, that the petitioner-in-person is seeking personal information relating to respondent No.4/Shri Rahul Singh under the R.T.I. Act. The petitioner-in-person is seeking his application for dependent employment with declaration and verification forms along with affidavit filed by him on 17.03.2020 and his appointment order. The aforesaid information of respondent No.4/Shri Rahul Singh comes under the purview of “Personal Information”, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act.

¶39

6

¶40

9. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have categorically stated that such information, which is personal in nature cannot be supplied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra Agrawal, reported in 2020 (5) SCC 481 has held in para 59 as under:-

¶41

“………….59 Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRS, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied This list is indicative and not exhaustive………..”

¶42

10. When the matter is considered in the light of the aforesaid principle as well as the application, as filed by the petition-in-person under the R.T.I. Act, there is no doubt that the information which was being sought by the petitioner-inperson comes under the purview of “Personal Information” and that cannot be furnished, as it is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act.

¶43

11. In view of above, the Central Information Commission has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and the same is in accordance with law and it does not call for any interference by this Court order.

¶44

7

¶45

12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶46

13. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶49

Judge