Central Information Commission
Abodh Khandelwal vs Ministry Of Railways on 11 July, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067.
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/RK/A/2016/000784-AB
In the matter of:
Abodh Khandelwal
B-11, Varkratunda CHS Ltd, Plot No. - 11,
Sec - 42, Nerul, Navi Mumbai - 400706
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Belapur,
Bhavan, Sector - 11, CB D Belapur, Navi
Mumbai - 400614
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 21.07.2015
CPIO reply : 29.07.2015
First Appeal : 15.08.2015
FAA Order : 11.09.2015
Second Appeal : 09.02.2016
Date of hearing : 22.06.2017
Facts:
The appellant sought information on 3 points, relating to documents submitted by M/s Yardi Prabhu associates in respect of Internal audit report. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The appellant being aggrieved filed first appeal on 15.08.2015. The FAA concurred with the CPIO reply. The appellant beng aggrieved filed second appeal to this Commission on 09.02.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : PIO, Shri Nandu, CPO
1
During the hearing the respondent PIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 29.07.2015 which is just and proper and the case should be dismissed. The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that the respondent CPIO has claimed exemption u/s Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act which deals with fiduciary relationship between the internal auditors and the public authority concerned. In the present case it is not tenable as the information is not asked from the internal auditor but from the respondent CPIO only.
During the hearing the PIO further submitted that section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is applicable in this case as the internal auditor's report contains names of officers other than that of the appellant in connection with a vigilance case and names of the other officers cannot be severed from the appellant's name hence, severability clause u/s 10 of the RTI Act is not possible to be applied in the present case. A more categorical and parawise reply on point nos. (b) and (c) should have been provided to the appellant. On point no. (a) the respondent PIO submitted that there are details of various officers alongwith the appellant in the audit report and only the portion pertaining to the appellant cannot be delinked from that relating to other officers. An affidavit on point (a) should accordingly be provided in regard to the above.
The respondent CPIO is therefore directed to provide clear affidavit on point no.
(a) within 15 days of the receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant.
It was admitted by the PIO that other portion of the part (D) of the said audit report can be provided to the appellant. In regard to the paras (b) and (c) of the said RTI application, the position as existing should be provided on the basis of available documents.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 2