CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002321/9593
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002321
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Paul
B-94 Pandara Road
New Delhi-110003
Respondent : Mr. Subhash Chandra
Public Information Officer & Regional PF Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization
Head Office Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
14-Bhikaiji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066
RTI application filed on : 09/04/2010
PIO replied : 12/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 14/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 21/06/2010
Second Appeal received on : 17/08/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether Mr Dev Kumar had availed the facility Yes.
of HBA -Yes/No.
2. Copy of the application form along with the On perusal of application it was observed
related Annexure for applying for HBA for the that it contains personal information that has
purchase of land and for constructing house . no relation to public activity.
3. A copy of the office letter that convey the grantOn perusal of the office letter it has been
of HBA. observed that it contains personal
information .
4. Whether any officer depute any No.
EO/superintendent for the verify of genuineness
of purpose before granting loan .if yes then the
copy of the report submitted.
5. Whether the HBA was released in equal Mr. Rajver Singh and Mr. B.K Srivastava
installment and before payment of installment were deputed to inspect the site. Report
someone of the EPFO Head officer would have contained personal information about Mr.
inspect the site with the names of officers who Dev Kumar.
paid a visit to the site.
6. The names of the people who stood for grant of Mr. A.K Sood and Mr. Ashok Bhatt stood
HBA to Mr. Dev Kumar . surely.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The necessary direction to be given to the RPFC(ASD)CPIO to provide the information.
Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
RPFC/CPIO(ASD) was directed to go through the original application dated 09/04/2010 and arrange to
supply the information.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Paul;
Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Kr. Verma, Section Officer on behalf of behalf of Mr. Subhash Chandra,
Public Information Officer & Regional PF Commissioner;
The PIO has provided the information which is not covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
after the order of the FAA. The PIO has refused to give information regarding query-2 & 3 on the
ground that it is covered under Section 8(1)(j). This denial of information is upheld by the Commission.
However, the PIO has refused to give the information sought by the appellant in query-5 namely,
“report submitted by official who paid a visit to the site.” This information cannot be denied since
disclosure of this cannot be considered an invasion on the privacy of an individual. The PIO is directed
to provide this information.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide a copy of the report mentioned above to the
appellant before 20 October 2010.
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
04 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AM)
Page 2 of 2