Central Information Commission
Vikram Kumar vs Northern Railway on 8 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NRAIL/C/2023/656669
Vikram Kumar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Northern Railway, Construction
Organization Headquarters,
1569, Church Road, Kashmere
Gate, Delhi - 110006 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.04.2025
Date of Decision : 07.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.09.2023
CPIO replied on : __.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 18.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1. Shri Sangeet Kumar. Chief Office Supdt, who is working in Northern Railway, presently posted in the office of Chief Administrative Office / Construction, Works Branch, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 110006.
2. He is working under Secy. to CAO/Construction, Northem Railway. Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
1. Academic Qualification of Shri Sangeet Kumar, Chief Office Supdt. as per office records may please be informed with supporting documents.
2. A copy of Academic Qualification Certificate may please be informed.
3. Name of Issuing Authority/School/Board of Certificate may please be informed with supporting documents."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on __.12.2023 stating as under:
"Question with Sr. No: 1, 2, 3 The information sought by you is third party information."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person along with Shri Om Prakash. Respondent: Shri Indervir Singh, Assistant Personnel Officer and PIO and Shri Satheesh Kumar, Chief OS present in person.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Complainant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that he had sought specific Page 2 of 5 information, but the Respondent has wrongly denied the same under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Respondent submitted that they have categorically informed the Complainant that the information sought by him is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non- receipt of information from the Respondent. In this regard, it was noted that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Complainant.
The Commission observes that the Complainant had asked information which is related to personal information of third party and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the Complainant has not disclosed any larger public interest in disclosing the information.
The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also 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 Page 3 of 5 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 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..."
Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the PIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or Page 4 of 5 knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
No relief can be granted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Northern Railway, Construction Organization Headquarters, 1569, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)