25DrAshokShankarShuklaITONasik183 12 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/S/A/2009/000025/LS
Appellant: Dr Ashok Shankar Shukla
Public Authority: Income Tax Department, Nasik
(through Dr. O.P. Kakralia, CIT-II(AA))
Date of Hearing: 18/03/2009
Date of Decision: 18/03/2009
FACTS
:-
By his letter of 19/02/2008, the Appellant had requested for information about the
Dilasa Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Jalgaon, without specifically mentioning as to what
information he was requesting for.
2. CPIO had refused to disclose the information in terms of section 11(1) and u/s
8(1)(j) of RTI Act, vide order dated 05/05/2008.
3. On Appeal, the Appellate Authority had upheld the decision of CPIO vide order
dated 30/06/2008.
4. The present Appeal is directed against the order of the CPIO and the AA.
5. The matter was heard on 18/03/2009. The Appellant did not appear before the
Commission. The Public Authority is represented by the officer named above. I have
perused the Appeal filed by the Appellant before this Commission. In column 7 of the
Appeal, the relief sought is as follows:-
“Certified copies of the proposal submitted by Dilasa Bahuuddeshiya
Sanstha, Jalgaon.”
6. From the above, it is not clear as to what specific documents he is requesting for
from the IT Department. In any case, third party information can be disclosed only in
terms of proviso appended to sub section (1) of section 11 of RTI Act which
contemplates disclosure only if the public interest in disclosure out-weighs in importance
any possible harm or injury to the third party. I have carefully gone through the Appeal
filed by the Appellant and it is noticed that the Appellant has not adduced any grounds to
show that public interest in disclosure would out-weigh the third party interest. Further,
despite notice having been issued, the Appellant has not appeared before the Commission
to canvass his point.
25DrAshokShankarShuklaITONasik183 12 2
7. It has been the consistent view of the Commission that third party information can
be disclosed only in exceptional circumstances as mentioned herein above. In the
written submissions submitted before the Commission, Dr. O.P. Kakralia has referred to
this Commission’s decision dated 12/02/2007 in File No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00870 (Mubin
Khan Vs. Dte. Of Income Tax(Exemptions)) and decision dated 14/08/2006 in File
No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00142 (Hemant Kumar S. Jain Vs. Commissionerate of Income
Tax, Mumbai). I see no reasons to deviate from the above decisions.
DECISION
8. In view of the above, the orders passed by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority
appear to be in order. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.
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