11.1

[siju]

The central information commission, in Rajesh Madhukant, v. PIO, Hemwati Nandan Bhauguna Garhwal University, CIC/CC/A/2014/000666 decided on 14-12-2016 held as below
5. The Commission finds neither merit nor legality in the contention of the University that the information about Chief Minister of Uttarakhand was third party information. The PIO of public authority should have applied his mind, understood the aims and objects of RTI Act before flatly denying the request. Even if it is assumed that PIO was correct in contending that the information sought was third party information belonging to Mr. Ramesh Pokhriyal "Nishank”; the PIO was under an obligation under Section 11 (1) of RTI Act to seek the opinion of the Mr. Ramesh Pokhriyal "Nishank”. The PIO failed to fulfil such obligation. Even if the Chief Minister raises objection against disclosure, it is the duty of PIO to examine independently the public interest factor and decide whether information was to be disclosed. There is no record to show that the PIO of HNBG University has taken any independent decision on these lines prescribed by RTI Act, nor he gave any reason for the rejection.