CIC : Provide Dowry Declaration of FIL

Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002976/17296
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002976
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. P. Rajasekar
New No 59, Old No 75/1,
Kannabiran Koil Street
Perambur, Chennai-600011

Respondent : Mr. Ashok Joshi,
PIO & General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India,
Central Office, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Fort, Mumbai – 400005

Third Party: Mr. N. V. Palaniappan
Special Assistant Cash Department
Reserve Bank of India
Fort Glacis, Chennai- 600001

RTI application filed on : 06/01/2011
PIO replied : 04/02/2011
First appeal filed on : 20/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 19/07/2011
Second Appeal received on : 24/10/2011

Information Sought:
Information is sought concerning the life and liberty.
I request you to provide certified copies of the below mentioned information:
Kindly furnish the Declaration given by Shri N.V.Planiappan “that no element of dowry is involved” in his Daughter Smt V.P.Vijayalakshmi’s Marriage.

Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
This information has been received by us in fiduciary capacity and hence it is exempt from disclosure under
Section 8(1) (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply provided by the PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA is satisfied with the order of PIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Late and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 09 January 2012:
The following were present

Appellant: Mr. P. Rajasekar on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;

Respondent: Ms. Jonaki Sain, Dy. Legal Advisor on behalf of Dr. N. Krishna Mohan, PIO & Chief General Manager via video – conference from NIC Studio- Mumbai.
“The PIO has refused to give the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The PIO also states that they had sought the views of the third party Mr. N. V. Paliniyappan whether the information should be disclosed to the Appellant. The PIO stated that the third party had objected to disclosure of the information. The Commission therefore adjourns the hearing to give the third party an opportunity to give his objections to revealing the information.”
The matter was adjourned.

Note: The Commission had issued a hearing notice of hearing on 20/01/2012 to the Third Party Mr. N.V. Palaniappan as well as Appellant and the PIO to appear before the Commission on 10 February
2012 at 12.15PM.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 10 February 2012:
The following were present

Appellant: Mr. K. Amarnath representing Mr. P. Rajasekar on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;

Respondent: Ms. Jonaki Sain, Dy. Legal Advisor on behalf of Mr. Ashok Joshi, PIO & General Manager on video – conference from NIC Studio- Mumbai.

Third Party: Absent;
The Third Party has not appears for the hearing though he was given an opportunity to present his view. The PIO claims that the Form in which the application is made by the Third Party Mr. N. V.Palaniappan for his PF withdrawal for marriage may also have other information disclosing which may be an invasion on his privacy. The Commission therefore directs the PIO to black out any information revealing which may be claimed to an invasion on the privacy of Mr. N. V. Palaniappan. This severance would be done as per the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act. However, if there is any declaration that no dowry was involved this would not blanked out.

The appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant after severing any information which he feels would intrude the privacy of Mr. N. V.Palaniappan to the Appellant before 10 March 2012.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
10 February 2012

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!