Moneylife: Pune: Friday, March 15, 2013.
The PIO's
rejection was completely wrong since there is nothing in the law or the rules
preventing more than one citizen from submitting an RTI application, ruled the
CIC. This is the 56th in a series of important judgements given by former
Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an
RTI application
The Central
Information Commission (CIC), while pointing out that the Public Information
Officer (PIO)’s rejection of an application since it was signed by seven other
people has no basis in the law, asked the PIO of the regional officer of
Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) at Ranchi, to give complete
information to the appellant.
While giving
this important judgement on 16 July 2010, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central
Information Commissioner said, “...the PIO’s rejection has no basis in law. The
First Appellate Authority (FAA) has not supported the PIO's contention but has
justified denial of information claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (j) to
deny information relating to those who had signed the RTI application.”
Bokaro
resident Samir Kumar Haldar, on 4 February 2010, sought information from the
regional officer of Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) at Ranchi,
about provident fund accounts of labourers of Magadh Engineering Works. He
sought the following information...
1.
All
the appellants, who are labourers in the Magadh Engineering Works (EPF Code: JH
/10532), have EPF accounts in which their monthly payments are deposited. The
names along with their father’s names and their account numbers are enclosed.
Furnish the self-certified copies of the AR and 6 AR of the mentioned names
from 1999 to 2008.
2.
Detailed
copy of the orders passed since 2005 till present, under the EPF 1952 scheme
provision 7 A against the Magadh Engineering Works.
The PIO did
not provide any information and instead rejected Haldar's application citing it
as a joint application by the applicant and seven others. Haldar then filed his
first appeal before the FAA.
In his order,
the FAA said, “In the original application of Shri Haldar, the same is joined
by seven other applicants but the address of communication which has been given
is of Shri Haldar. Further, the copy of Form 3(R) and 6 (AR) has been sought in
respect to all applications. Now, these returns contain the details of members
like details of wages and details of PF contribution, which is personal
information in respect of those members and is maintained by this office in its
fiduciary capacity. Sending this information for all members on the postal
address of one applicant will tantamount to disclosing these personal
information to the individual on whose address the same is sent and thus would
be violation of the provisions of Section 8(1) e) and (J) of the RTI Act 2005.”
“I do not
think proper to disclose the information sought jointly and hence the request
of Shri Haldar is rejected. However, the individuals are free to make an
application individually to seek information under the RTI Act 2005,” the FAA
said in his order on 25 May 2010.
Not satisfied
with the reply of PIO and order of FAA, the applicant then approached the CIC
with his second appeal.
During a
hearing, the CIC pointed out that both the parties were not present. It said,
the RTI application was filed on 4 February 2010 and the information should
have been provided to the appellant before 6 March 2010. Instead a rejection
was sent to the appellant on 30 March 2010 stating that since seven other
people have sought the information the PIO was refusing to supply the
information, the CIC noted.
Mr Gandhi,
the then CIC, pointed out that the FAA had not taken cognizance of objections
raised by the PIO that seven other people have signed the RTI application along
with the appellant but upheld the refusal to give information by invoking
Section 8(1)(j) since the appellant had sought details of wages and PF
contributions.
“The PIO’s rejection was completely wrong
since there is nothing in the law or the rules preventing more than one citizen
from submitting the RTI application. Section 3 of the RTI Act states, ‘subject
to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have Right to Information’.
Hence the PIO's rejection has no basis in law,” the CIC said.
Mr Gandhi
said, “It is correct that the details of an individual’s PF account cannot be
given to anyone else, since it would be an intrusion on the privacy of an individual
but since seven other people had signed the RTI application jointly with Haldar
the information could have been provided. In case the FAA wanted to verify if
the other seven people had no objection in giving the information he could have
ordered the PIO to seek their concurrence under Section 11 of the RTI Act.”
The CIC while
allowing the appeal asked the PIO to give complete information to Haldar before
5 August 2010.
Since the PIO
failed to provide information within stipulated time under sub-section (1) of
Section 7 of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show-cause notice to him. The
CIC said, the PIO would present himself before the Commission on 16 August 2010
along with his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20(1) of the Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
