Mr.Pc Ramakrihnaiah vs Coal Mines Provident Fund … on 27 September, 2010

                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                          .....

F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000372 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000373
Total : 2 Appeals

Dated, the 27  September, 2010.

                                                                 th




 Appellant         : Shri P.C. Ramakrishnaiah 


 Respondent        : Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner
 s

This   matter   came   up   for   hearing   on   21.09.2010   through 
videoconference   (VC).     Appellant   was   present   at   NIC   VC   facility   at 
Hyderabad,   while   the   respondents   ―   represented   by   Shri   S.K.   Sinha, 
CPIO   ―   were   present   at   NIC   VC   facility   at   Dhanbad.     Commission  
conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.

Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000372:

2. The point for consideration in this appeal is Sl.No.4 in appellant’s 
RTI­application,   which   was   relating   to   disclosure   of   the   soft   copy   of 
Ledger Account Cards as on the date of the application, viz. 01.03.2010.

3. Respondents explained that the soft copies of the ledger accounts 
sought   by   the   appellant   contained   personal   details   of   around   54,000 
employees.   These details comprised names, the contribution by each, 
interest payment, if any and so on.  These could not be authorized to be 
disclosed as the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) was attracted.

4 I am in agreement  with the respondents  that the details  such as 
those mentioned above were in the personal domain of the contributors to 
CIC_AT_A_2010_000373_M_43167.doc 
Page 1 of 3
the fund and could not be allowed to be disclosed to an RTI applicant. 
Section 8(1)(j) is attracted.

5. Appeal fails.  Closed.

Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000373:

6. Appellant’s   RTI­queries   comprised   in   his   application   dated 
27.02.2010 were mostly in regard to the management of the depositors 
funds by the Board of Trustees.

7. Respondents  have  cited  non­disclosure  agreement  with  the  fund 
managers to decline the requested information.  Appellate Authority cited 
Section 8(1)(e) to decline disclosure.

8. In   my   view,   such   a   manner   of   denial   of   information   for   specific 
queries is procedurally deficient.   A reading of the queries shows that a 
large part of these relate to figures of funds deposited, interest rates paid 
by various Banks, differential rates of Private and Public Sector Banks, 
among others.  Similarly, other queries were also regarding such details 
as   the   names   of   the   Banks   where   the   funds   were   deposited   and   the 
manner approval of the Board of Trustees was taken.   A little reflection 
about each one of these queries could have revealed that quite a large 
number of information could be provided from the information as held by 
the   public   authority,   viz.   CMPF,   without   violating   any   confidentiality 
agreement   that   might   be.     The   Commission   has   been   advising   the 
Appellate Authorities and the CPIOs to invariably consider each item of 
information autonomously for reply and to avoid taking omnibus positions.

9. I would like the Appellate Authority, CMPF to reconsider the range 
of queries de­novo and to give a reply to each of these queries in the light 
of   legal   provisions,   without   any   mental   pre­dispositions   or   pre­
determination.     If   considered   necessary,   the   third­parties   ―   the   fund 

CIC_AT_A_2010_000373_M_43167.doc 
Page 2 of 3
managers   ―   might   also   be   consulted   under   Section   7(7)   and   Section 
11(1) of the RTI Act.

10. Matter  is accordingly  remitted  back  to the Appellate  Authority  for 
de­novo consideration and decision within four weeks.

11. Appeal accordingly disposed of.

12. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties. 

( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

CIC_AT_A_2010_000373_M_43167.doc 
Page 3 of 3