CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00761
Dated, the 18th December, 2008
Appellant : Ms. Rajni
Respondents : Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)
This second-appeal by Ms.Rajni (appellant) came up for hearing on
15.12.2008. In response to Commission’s hearing notice dated 14.10.2008,
appellant was absent when called, while the respondents were present through
the AA and the CPIO. Third-party, Shri Ranbir Singh was also present.
2. A perusal of the second-appeal-petition of the appellant reveals that she is
the estranged wife of the third-party, Shri Ranbir Singh. She has lodged a dowry
harassment case against her husband ⎯ the third-party, Shri Ranbir Singh ⎯
which is now before a Court.
3. Third-party submitted that the requested information should not be handed
over to the appellant as its disclosure was bound to affect his interest in the
ongoing dowry harassment case. He also urged that the information requested
was personal to him and there was no reason why it should be given to the
appellant in order to enable her to pursue her vendetta against the third-party.
There was no public interest that would warrant overriding the provision of
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. The position taken by the respondents is that all information, except those
mentioned at Sl.Nos.6 and 7 of appellant’s RTI-application dated 25.01.2008,
were personal to the appellant and, therefore, should not be disclosed.
Information relating to items 6 and 7 of the RTI-application have since been
disclosed to the appellant through a communication of the CPIO dated
11.04.2008.
5. In her second-appeal petition, appellant has not stated anything about why
the information withheld from her ought to be authorized to be disclosed.
She had not made out any case apart from saying that she needed this
information to pursue the ongoing litigation against her estranged husband ⎯ the
third-party Shri Ranbir Singh.
6. Third-party cited Commission’s decisions in Appeal No.CIC/MA/A/
2008/01277 and CIC/MA/A/2008/01340 in support of his plea that the requested
Page 1 of 2
information ⎯ being personal to the third-party ⎯ must not be disclosed to the
appellant.
7. It is quite obvious that information requested by the appellant such as the
third party’s CGHS card, his leave account, the name and the numbers of his
dependents as per his Service Book, the information submitted to the public
authority by the third-party regarding his marriage, withdrawal from the
third-party’s GPF account, etc. are decidedly personal to the third-party and do
attract Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Respondents have rightly declined to
disclose this information to the appellant. It is also noticed that the disclosable
part of the information, i.e. those figuring at Sl.Nos.6 and 7 have been disclosed
to the appellant. There is no public interest to warrant overriding the provisions
of Section 8(1)(j) to authorize disclosure of the requested information.
Appellant’s personal dispute with the third-party does not constitute public
interest.
8. The decision of the respondents is upheld. Appeal is closed.
9. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2