CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

..
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00659
Dated, the 19th March, 2007.

Appellant : Shri Vibhor Dileep Barla, 15, Mukti, 9, Samarth Nagar,

Nashik-422 005

Respondents : Brig. S.C. Nair, DDGPI & CPIO, Director General of Military
Intelligence, Addl. Director General of Public Info.,
B-30, South Block, Army Headquarters, New Delhi-110 011.

Lt. Gen. I.J. Koshy, Appellate Authority, Army Headquarters,

New Delhi-110 011.

This is an appeal filed by Shri Vibhor Dileep Barla against the order of the
Appellate Authority (AA), dated 1.12.2006, in which the AA had upheld the order dated
22.9.2006 of the CPIO, which was in response to the appellants RTI-request dated
18.9.2006.

2. The appellants RTI-request was in the nature of seeking details about a certain
Lt. Col. Kishore Chandrakant Gupte who allegedly claimed to be a Retired Lieutenant
Colonel and, as stated by the appellant, dealt in sale of Plot No.63, located at Survey
No.244, Pathardi, Nashik, Maharashtra and completed the sale without the permission of
the Collector which is a requisite for a sale of the said-plot. The appellant believes that
there is no Lt. Col Kishore Chandrakant Gupte and the transaction conducted in his name
was a benami one. He contends that Gupte and Gupta are often used inter-changeably
in Maharashtra Region as surnames. It is the information of the appellant that there is an
officer answering to the name Kishore Chandrakant Gupte in Army records. The
appellant would like to confirm whether he is the same person as Lt.Col Kishore
Chandrakant Gupta. The appellant aims to unearth whether there was any attempt at
impersonation in the matter of land transaction by certain Army personnel.

3. The appellants plea was turned down by both the AA and the CPIO on the
ground of it attracting the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. According to
them, it is not the Armys business to confirm or deny the appellants suspicion about the
true identity of a person who enters into some land deal somewhere in the country. The
appellant countered the reasoning of the AA and the CPIO by saying that the information
he has sought has nothing to do with any invasion of privacy of any individual. What he
has attempted to elicit is whether the Kishore Chandrakant Gupte or Kishore Chandrakant
Gupta is actually the Army officer who entered into the alleged land deal in Nashik.

4. Parties were called for a hearing on 5.3.2007. The appellant was called and was
absent while the respondents were represented by the CPIO.

5. The appellant has sought to put the RTI to an ingenious use, i.e. confirming an
identity of an employee of a public authority in the context of a similar sounding name
which is entered in the land records pursuant to a land transaction. He has urged that he
 2

is serving a higher purpose, i.e. restoring the honour and the image of the Army in the
eyes of the people by exposing a possible case of impersonation by one of its officers.

6. The type of information the appellant has solicited, reduced to the norms of the
RTI Act, amounts to disclosing to him particulars of the employment of a specific officer
of the Army, serving or retired. The short-point for consideration before the Commission
is whether Section 8(1)(j) is attracted to this type of information.

7. A look at the range of information the appellant has sought about Lt. Col. Kishore
Chandrakant Gupte or Lt. Col. Kishore Chandrakant Gupta reveals that it is not only
about the details of his (Lt. Col. Kishore Chandrakant Gupte) employment with the Army
but also about punishments if any awarded; whether he had entered into any land deal
and if so, whether he had taken the requisite permission from the Army under the
Officers Conduct Rule; source of income and so on.

8. This information is very clearly about the personal details of an employee of the
public authority. There is absolutely no reason why this information should be made
available to a stranger, no matter how laudable the latters purpose may be.
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure not only personal information
which have had no relationship to any public activity or public interest but also all such
information which invade privacy of an individual. The loftiness of the
information-requesters purpose would not alter the character of the information, or
downgrade the exemption applied, except when a clear public purpose can be cited.

9. In the present case, there is no tangible public purpose which has been cited by
the appellant that would convince the Commission to override the guaranteed exemption
under Section 8(1)(j) to the individual. A mere suspicion cannot constitute the basis for a
public interest.

10. In case the appellant feels that a fraud has really been committed or the Army was
derelict in matters of strict observance of the Conduct Rules, he may approach the forums
which have been statutorily assigned with the task of addressing such allegations.

11. In my view, there is no infirmity in the interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) by the AA

and the CPIO. The orders of the subordinate authorities are upheld.

12. The appeal is rejected.

Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by

Sd/-
( NISHA SINGH )
Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar
 3

Address of parties:

1. Shri Vibhor Dileep Barla, 15, Mukti, 9, Samarth Nagar, Nashik-422 005

2. Brig. S.C. Nair, DDGPI & CPIO, Director General of Military Intelligence,
Addl. Director General of Public Info., B-30, South Block, Army Headquarters,
New Delhi-110 011.

3. Lt. Gen. I.J. Koshy, Appellate Authority, Army Headquarters, New Delhi-11.