Central Information Commission
Priya Tushar Mahajan vs Central Railway on 17 December, 2021
CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101427
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/CRAIL/A/2020/101427
In the matter of:
Priya Tushar Mahajan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/DPO Central Railway, DRM
office, Personnel Branch,
Bhuswal-425201
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 17.11.2019
CPIO replied on : 27.11.2019
First Appeal filed on : 13.12.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 27.12.2019
Second Appeal received on : 09.01.2020
Date of Hearing : 16.12.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Smt. Priya Tushar Mahajan participated in the hearing through
audio/video conferencing from NIC Jalgaon.
Respondent: Shri B.S. Ramteke, APO participated in the hearing through
audio/video conferencing from NIC Jalgaon.
Page 1 of 7
CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101427
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 17.11.2019 seeking information on the following two points:
Shri M. K. Gaikwad, APIO / Divisional Personnel Officer (Per.), Central Railway, Bhusawal vide letter dated 27.11.2019, denied information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.12.2019, informed as under:Page 2 of 7
CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101427 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. The Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant stated that she is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent. Upon queried by the Commission as to whether the Appellant has been arrayed as a party in a legal/matrimonial dispute, she replied in affirmative.
The Respondent reiterated the contents of the written submission dated 09.12.2021.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Smt. Rukmaya Mina, First Appellate Authority and Asst. Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal vide letter dated 09.12.2021, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 3 of 7
CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101427 Page 4 of 7 CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101427 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Yet, the Respondent after receiving the hearing notice from the Commission has provided certain documents/information to the Appellant. The Commission sternly cautions the Respondent public authority to be careful in future and shall strictly adhere to the specific exemption clauses mentioned at Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Be that as it may, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
"16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex-husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in-laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.
...
...
19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:
"xxx xxx xxx Page 5 of 7 CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101427
53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizen the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency."
Keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio, the Commission upholds the stance of the Respondent public authority and accordingly finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second 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: 16.12.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 6 of 7 CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101427 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ADRM Central Railway, DRM office, Personnel Branch, Bhuswal-425201
2. The Central Public Information Officer /DPO Central Railway, DRM office, Personnel Branch, Bhuswal-425201
3. Ms. Priya Tushar Mahajan Page 7 of 7