Central Information Commission
Abhimanyu Mondal vs South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 26 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SERLK/A/2023/115225
Abhimanyu Mondal .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the DRM (P),
South Eastern Railway, DRM Building,
Kharagpur, West Bengal-721301. .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024
Date of Decision : 25.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.01.2023
CPIO replied on : 07.02.2023
First appeal filed on : 23.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.03.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.01.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 5
"1). Is Tanmoy Dey Loco pilot (Goods) of your Division EMP No.-
50714101959 was joined in your Division as a Driver on 11/09/ 2021 or not? If he joined then what was his departure time from duty?
2). If Tanmoy Dey joined the duty, then what is his arrival time from the duty on 12/09/2021?
3). If Tanmoy Dey joined the duty, then what is his departure time from the duty on 12/09/2021 ?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.02.2023 stating as under:
"1,2,3. The sought Information seems to query and doesn't come under purview of RTI act U/s 2(f) and 8 (1) (j)."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.03.2023, held as under: -
"Your appeal dated 23/02/2023 has been considered carefully and the requisite information as sought for duly communicated vide PIO & Sr. DPO/KGP's letter No. SER/P- KGP/740/RTI/11462 (Appeal) dated 02/03/2023 in prescribed format containing 02 pages are enclosed herewith for your ready reference.
This is for your information please."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"...That main ground for what I sought for this formation is that their was a collision on that very that which mentioned aforesaid on the RTI and that Tanmoy Dey tried to kill me with his family members his in laws hit me with a iron hammer in my head am I admitted to the hospital on that very day later on their was F.I.R registered against Tanmoy Dey at Barasat P.S. vide Barasat P.S. Case No - 659/21, dated 12/09/2021, U/S- 447/341/325/308/427/379/506/34 I.P.C and they are released on bail on 27/09/2021, but with the monetary power and influence Tanmoy Dey withdrawn his name from the charge sheet and main section of Sec 308 of I.P.C was not Charge sheeted, and tanmoy dey gave a paper of his attendance on that day to the court that he was at his duty so this was not did by him but I don't have his paper of your authority that's why this information is very urgent and needful for me.Page 2 of 5
As I filed a Criminal Revision case before the Ld District Judge at Barasat, North 24 parganas vide Criminal Revision Number 296/22 and next date of hearing is on 19/06/2023 and if your authority give this information then I a senior citizen man above the age of 65 gets the proper justice in the eyes of law..."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Represented by Shri Chanchal Kumar, APO present through video-conference.
Hearing notice served to the Appellant received back undelivered with the postal remarks 'insufficient address'. However, since a substantial period has already lapsed in pendency of this matter, the Commission deems it fit to decide the case on merits.
A written submission dated 10.06.2024 filed by Ms. Shreya Shandilya, Sr. DPO/CPIO is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below -
"...In this connection it is to mention that the information sought for by the applicant related to Mr. Tanmoy Dey, LP (Goods)/KGP, Emp. No. 50714101959, is purely personal details pertaining to concerned employee who happens to be a third party. Moreover, his RTI seems to be query and doesn't come under purview of RTI ACT U/s 2(f) and 8(1)(j), which has already been communicated vide aforementioned this office letter No. SER/P-KGP/740/RTI/11416 dated 07.02.2023.
Further, he has preferred First Appeal dated 07.02.2023 to FAA&ADRM/KGP, which has also been disposed vide Appellate Order No. ADRM/KGP/RTI/Appeal/1377/Reply dated 06.03.2023 (Photocopy along with its enclosure are enclosed). From the above, it is clear that earlier reply given vide this office letter No. SER/P- KGP/740/RTI/11416 dated 07.02.2023 remains stand good."
Page 3 of 5Respondent reiterated his stand for denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by explaining that the Appellant has neither established his locus standi nor any larger public interest in seeking the personal information of the third party.
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was denial of information by the Respondent. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Respondent has appropriately denied the requested information to the Appellant as it contains the elements of personal information of the third party which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Here, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to Page 4 of 5 protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Hence, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the DRM, South Eastern Railway, DRM Building, Kharagpur, West Bengal-721301.Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)