Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Tarun Agrawal vs North Western Railway on 19 June, 2020

                                                         CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/167010

                                    के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067



ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/167010

In the matter of:

Tarun Agrawal                                                    ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                          VERSUS
                                           बनाम


CPIO ,                                                        ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
North Western Railway,
RTI Cell, Divisional Office,
Ajmer, Rajasthan



Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 09.07.2018               FA        : 10.08.2018          SA     : 13.11.2018

CPIO : 13.08.2018              FAO : Not on record             Hearing : 16.06.2020


The following were present:

Appellant: Heard over the phone

Respondent: Shri Vikas Kumar Sehra, ADEN (Line), North Western Railway,
RTI Cell, Divisional Office, Ajmer, Rajasthan, heard over the phone


                                                                              Page 1 of 6
                                                     CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/167010

                                      ORDER

Information Sought:

The appellant filed an RTI application on 09.07.2018, seeking information on five points pertaining to certified copies of bills, NOC, etc., including, inter-alia;

1. Supply certified copy of STP taken from the Department of Minerals for the work of construction of multi story car parking in station area vide Tender Notification Number WA/E-Tender/33/2017, Tender No. 135/2017,

2. Supply certified copy of MB of all running bills and record entries pertaining to the said work,

3. Supply certified copy of Ravanna Royalty receipts with respect to the above noted work, and supply photocopy of NOC of Minerals Department, etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 13.08.2018, provided point wise information to the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 10.08.2018 which was not disposed of by the FAA.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that an appropriate reply has not been provided to him by the respondent on point nos. 2 and 4 of his RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete and correct information sought for.

CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/167010 The respondent submitted that the information sought vide point no. 2 in the present RTI application has been sought by the appellant in his previous RTI application dated 18.04.2018 as well. He further submitted that in response to the previous RTI application, the appellant was offered inspection of relevant records. However, he chose not to inspect. Thus, vide reply dated 13.08.2018, the appellant was informed against point no. 2 of his present RTI application that since he chose not to inspect, no further action on the part of the respondent is required. With respect to the information sought vide point no. 4, he submitted that the information sought relates to personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. Hence, the said information was denied to the appellant vide letter dated 13.08.2018.

The appellant contented that in response to his previous RTI application dated 18.04.2018, he was informed that MB has not been generated. He further submitted that he was called to inspect the records in order to ascertain that the MB has not been generated. However, what he had sought was a copy of the MB.

Therefore, he filed the current RTI application once again seeking the copy of MB assuming that the MB would have been generated by now.

The respondent submitted that although the MB has now been generated, it is a voluminous document, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. He added that, if the appellant wants, he can inspect the relevant records on any given date.

CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/167010 Decision:

The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, directs the respondent to allow the appellant to inspect all relevant records pertaining to the information sought vide point no. 2 of his RTI application on a mutually decided date and time as per the provisions of the RTI Act and to obtain photocopies of the requisite documents, upon payment of fees. The Commission, further, observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 held as under:

"...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 protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and confidential access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/167010 In view of the above ratio, the Commission observes that the information/documents pertaining to the educational qualification of the Site Engineer, as sought vide point no. 4, relates to his personal information and hence, are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act. The Commission, however, directs the respondent to provide the name of the Site Engineer, to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.

Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 16.06.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 5 of 6 CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/167010 Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) North Western Railway, RTI Cell, Divisional Office, Ajmer, Rajasthan

2. The Central Public Information Officer North Western Railway, RTI Cell, Divisional Office, Ajmer, Rajasthan

3. Mr. Tarun Agrawal Page 6 of 6