Central Information Commission
S Vijayakumar vs Southern Railway on 19 February, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SORLY/A/2023/103099
S VIJAYAKUMAR .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Sr. DPO, Southern Railway,
Divisional Office,
Thiruvananthapuram-695014 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15-02-2024
Date of Decision : 19-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06-08-2022
CPIO replied on : 14-09-2022
First appeal filed on : 22-10-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 29-12-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10-01-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.08.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1) Please furnish me the details/ reasons/grounds regarding the denial of retirement benefits with respect to MACP III and Ch.OS Post to my client, Marjamma George, who retired as OS after33 years of Service from your office vide PPO No.20167060400050.
2) I have sent 2 Advocates Notices to your office for which no response is given yet in this regard."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.09.2022 stating as under:
"With reference to your Request for information under RTI Act, your attention is invited to the decision of Hon'ble CIC in the case of Sri Lambadi Banavath Govind Vs. CPIO, Deccan Grameena Bank [File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002943] wherein Hon'ble CIC observed the following.
"3. In our view if an Appellant files an RTI application through an advocate, it should be accompanied by a vakalatnama or proper authority letter to the satisfaction of the public authority. Further, as per provisions of the RTI Act, applications filed under the Act are to be disposed of by the CPIO and FAA designated by the public authority and not by the advocate of the public authority."
However, your client may directly approach her previous employer for the redressal of her grievances."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.10.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 29.12.2022, held as under:
"I the undersigned, in the capacity of appellate authority have considered your appeal under section 19 of the RTI Act 2005. Your original application referred to above and the reply given by the PIO has been gone through and it is seen that the ground of your appeal is that the PIO had provided incomplete information.
The case was carefully gone through, duly calling for connected records and on examination it is found that PIO had replied to your application under RTI Act.2
Sr. No.1 & 2: The decision of CIC under File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002943 dtd. 14.02.2016 referred by PIO stands good.
Moreover, the information sought relates to personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, same is not permissible to provide under the section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It may also be noted that RTI is not a forum for grievance redressal."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: M. Rosellin, APO and APIO present through video-conference.
Appellant stated that he has sought information on behalf of his client, however, it was wrongly denied by the Respondent.
Respondent reiterated the contents of averred reply.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes from a perusal of records that the instant Appeal is not maintainable in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case titled N. Saravanan vs. The Chief Commissioner / 2nd Appellant Authority & Ors., W.P. (MD) No. 4336 of 2017 dated 15.03.2017 wherein it was held as under -
"...4.The first respondent dismissed the appeal on the premise that the petitioner being a practising advocate cannot seek information relating to the cases instituted by him on behalf of his client. As a citizen he can personally ask for information but not as an advocate on behalf of his client. The reasoning given by the first respondent cannot be faulted at all. The second appeal filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected, as otherwise, every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the R.T.I. Act for getting information on behalf of his client, which situation does not advance the objects of the scheme of the R.T.I. Act.3
The laudable objects of the R.T.I. Act cannot be used for personal ends and should not become a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practise.
5.In such circumstances, the order of the 1st respondent, dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner does not suffer from infirmity and does not call for interference. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and substance and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
In view of the applicability of the above ratio, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the Respondent besides the Appeal not being maintainable.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 19-02-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date 4