Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vishnudas Rathi vs South Western Railway on 15 April, 2026

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

File No: CIC/SWRLY/A/2024/640609

Vishnudas Rathi                                            .....अपीलकता/Appellant
                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम
C.P.I.O,
South Western Railway
O/o Chief Administrative Officer,
18, Millers Road,
Bangalore - 560 046                                        .... ितवादी/Respondent

Date of Hearing                      :       15-04-2026
Date of Decision                     :       15-04-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                   Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                 :    21-07-2024
CPIO replied on                          :    13-08-2024
First appeal filed on                    :    13-08-2024
First Appellate Authority's order        :    02-09-2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated               :    11-09-2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21-07-2024 seeking the following information:

"(1) Copy of letter issued by Dy.CE/V/Construction/Bangalore for Notice under section 34(5) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Dated 26/06/2023 to Godawari Industrial Traders through its Partner Mr. Vishnudas Jaikisan Rathi (2) Copy of letter issued by Dy.CE/I/Construction/UBL for Notice under section 34(5) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to Godawari Industrial Traders"

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13-08-2024 stating as under:

"With reference to the above, the information as sought by RTI applicant, the copy of notice Dt. 26.06.2023 issued by Dy.CE/CN/V/BNC under section 34(5) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is enclosed herewith for your further needful action."

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13-08-2024. The F.A.A vide order dated 02-09-2024 stating as under:

"Reference to the above, this is to inform that initially after receiving the soft copy of Award through e-mail, the Notice dated:

26/06/2023 under Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was issued to Petitioner M/s Godawari Industrial Trader, and others where in it was mentioned that "Certified copy is received on 16/05/2023 by hand" by mistake, presuming that certified copy of award might have been received in our administrative office.

Subsequently, the Certified copy of Award has been obtained by hand on 05/12/2023 duly deputing one of the staff of this office. Accordingly, while submitting the Appeal/Suit through e-filing in District Court/ Pune on 09/02/2024, the mistake has been rectified by omitting the sentence "Certified copy is received on 16/05/2023 by hand" by this office.

It is requested to convey the above information to the RTI applicant."

4. 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: Shri Sunny Romana, Dy. CE (Constructions) & FAA, Shri Rajat Thanuia, Dy. CE & CPIO, Shri Laxmi Narayan and Ms. Sujata Kishore, Chief OS present through Video-Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 11.09.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.

7. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that false information was provided to him by the Respondent. During the hearing, the Appellant had sought clarification regarding two letters as received from the Respondent.

8. Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. Both the referenced documents are already available with the Appellant. Further, the applicant can't seek clarification on the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Pune district court as the matter is sub judice. The Respondent further apprised the Commission that the Appellant had filed multiple RTI applications where he had sought explanation/clarification from the PIO.

Decision:

9. The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant appeal is non-furnishing of complete and correct information by the PIO. On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on records has already been provided to the Appellant on his above-mentioned RTI application within stipulated period under the RTI Act.

10. Further, it is an admitted fact that the PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advises/rules can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the Public Authority. The PIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the Appellant.

11. Further, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information furnished by the PIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:

12. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v.

Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:

"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)

13. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:

"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."

14. While the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:

"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)

15. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the replies and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during hearing and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 Date Copy To:

The First Appellate Authority, South Western Railway, O/o Chief Administrative Officer, 18, Millers Road, Bangalore - 560 046 Vishnudas Rathi CIC/SWRLY/A/2024/640609 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)