Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'vijai sharma'.
Found 3 results
In yet another case Central Information Commission has allowed inspection of documents pertaining to third party citing larger public interest even though third party has said that his file should not be shown to anyone. The RTI applicant argued that the matter was a matter of interest to the public because the railways had indulged in selective decision making and discrimination. The appellant said that the railways had decided differently in the matter of one person, hence the issue was of interest to those who had not been given the same treatment. CIC found the argument of the appellant tenable and allowed inspection of the documents. (If you have any questions relating to third party clause, please go to our forum here and post your query, our experts shall reply to you). The learning for PIO is that if the third party objects to giving the information, the Public Information Officer must take his objections and see if any of the exemption clauses of Section 8 (1) apply. Even, if any of the exemption clauses apply, the PIO is then obliged to see if there is a larger Public interest in disclosure. If none of the exemption clauses apply, information has to be given. REFERENCE: Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. PIO, Delhi Jal Board Decision No. CIC /A T/A/2008/01262SG/2109 No third party exemption on discrimination The appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that he wanted to see the file of Shri Deepak Sharma to know the basis on which the case of Shri Sharma was decided. The appellant stated that the Divl. Office, North Western Railway, Ajmer did not allow him inspection of file of Shri Deepak Sharma. During the hearing the representative of Divl. Office, North Western Railway, Ajmer stated that a number of persons were working in the railway station as Commission Vendors and that all the concerned persons were sought to be accommodated in the railways. One of the persons was Shri Deepak Sharma, who had filed a case in the court. The court had given a judgment in his favour. The Divl. Office, North Western Railway, Ajmer stated that the case of Shri Deepak Sharma was decided by the them on the basis of court’s judgment. Shri Deepak Sharma was asked for his consent so that Railways can allow inspection of file to the appellant. Shri Deepak Sharma replied that his file should not be shown to anyone. The Divl. Office, North Western Railway, Ajmer stated that Shri Sharma did not give his consent, hence he did not allow inspection of file to the appellant. The case is available here! If you have anything to add to this story, kindly post it over comments below. If you have questions, you can go to our forum and post the query. (This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must read and download the decision from the CIC website)
CIC refused attempt by husband to get hold of information about his wife's locker. Earlier the Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) has denied the information citing section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, as he is the third party. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 02.05.2012 and stated that he is seeking information regarding the operation of his wife's locker. The appellant stated that he has strained relations with his wife. The appellant stated that he wanted to know on what dates and how many times, the locker was operated by his wife during a certain period. The appellant stated that he also wants statement of savings bank account and details of fixed deposits till date. The approach of the respondent bank was in conformity with the RTI Act and CIC upheld the decision of FAA. Can RTI break the wife locker Earlier in the decision posted at our law segment titled "Husband wife and third party clause under RTI", the CIC has ruled that Husband and Wife are separate legal entity therefore Husband wife and third party clause under RTI are applicable. Kindly read the numerous discussions at out forum regarding Third Party Information under RTI (Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001753/05738 Appeal No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001753 Dated: 31.12.2013 Appellant: Shri Sameer Bhandari Respondent: Public Information Officer, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, SCO 7677, Sector 17B, Chandigarh 160 017. Decision link: http://rti.cc/7l
rtiindia posted a post in Section 2 (f)A simple request to Canara bank for 'Yes' or 'No' to know whether the Canara Bank has any account who has given this particular address was denied by the bank citing Personal and Fiduciary relationship exception clauses. The applicant suspected that certain malpractices are being routed through this bank account which could be money laundering. He did not desired any statement of account and that he does not even want to know whether it is a cash credit or savings bank or term loan or a current account. "The appellant said that he just wants to get a response from the bank in 'yes' or 'no' on the point mentioned in the RTI application, i.e., whether there is any account holder in the bank with the addresses mentioned in the RTI application ". The Canara Bank denies Information immediately after applying the Exemption clauses under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed a first appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) who responded and informed the appellant that the sought information does not come under the purview of definition of information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Canara Bank denies Information The appellant stated that he is an informed citizen, wanting to get information in the public interest. The appellant emphasized that he does not want any statement of account and that he does not even want to know whether it is a cash credit or savings bank or term loan or a current account. The CIC allowed the appeal and the respondent was directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought above in context of the RTI application. (Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000384/05739 Appeal No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000384 Dated: 31.12.2013 Appellant: Shri K.D. Aggarwal, PIO: Public Information Officer, Canara Bank, Chandigarh Link to Decision: K.D.Aggarwal Vs Canara Bank