CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000612/12523
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000612
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar
ESIC Sub-Regional Office,
ESIC Hospital Building,
1st Floor, Pandeypur, Varanasi – 221002
Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : Public Information Officer
ESI Model Hospital,
Ministry of Labour
Namkum, Ranchi -834010
RTI application filed on : 15/06/2010
PIO replied : 26/10/2010
First appeal filed on : 24/01/2011
Facts of the issue:
Information regarding the following was sought by the applicant:
1) Qualification in writing as per ESIC Hqrs. Office records in respect of
(a) Dr. K.S. Garbyal, Splt. ;
(b) Dr. Pradumn Kumar Singh, GDMO;
(c) Dr. Sunil Kumar, GDMO;
(d) Dr. Brahm Deo Kumar, GDMO;
(e) Dr. Sameer Kumar, GDMO
All presently posted in ESIC Model Hospital, Ranchi
2) attested photocopies of MBBS degree or MD related to aforesaid doctors, and also of registration
certificates issued by the Registrar of respective State Medical Council empowering them to practice
as medical profession in general or in a particular field.
PIO’s reply:
The information relates to third party and no larger public interest has been justified to releasing the
information. The concerned parties have requested not to provide the information. The information
sought has no larger public interest for disclosure of such information. Hence, you are advised to
submit justification for the involvement of larger public interest in this case for further action at this
end.
First Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory
FAAs ORDER:-
The appellant has not justified any larger public interest involved in disclosure of information sought.
The decision of PIO is just and within the ambit of Right to Information Act,2005.
Ground of the Second appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar on video conference from NIC-Varanasi Studio;
Respondent : Absent;
The Appellant states that the FAA again reviewed the earlier decision and came to the
conclusions that the information sought by him is not exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Hence the FAA ordered the information to be provided and the Appellant sates he has received all the
information satisfactorily.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
25 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RJ)