Central Information Commission
Nazeer Ahmad vs South East Central Railway on 25 March, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SECRL/A/2023/146461
Nazeer Ahmad .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
South East Central Railway,
Opp: RVH Colony, Near Waltair Gate,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492008 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025
Date of Decision : 24.03.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 07.08.2023
First appeal filed on : 18.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 29.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.11.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 24.07.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"1. प सं. COMML/R/COMF/KP/B-061/10/21/1596 Dated 02-09-2021 के आधार पर जांच अ धकार ट नाग वारा 12824 के कोच कंड टर ट .वी. द ू के एन. खान और नजीर इमाम आर.पी. एफ. एक ह %यि त होने संबं धत बयान दज* कराने के बाद भी ,कस -नयम अथवा ,कस आदे श पर एन. खान और नजीर इमाम आर.पी.एफ. को बयान दज* करवाने हेतु काय*वाह नह ं क1 गई। जनकार द जाय।
2. प से COMML/R/COMF/KP/B-061/10/21/1596 Dated 02-09-2021 से संबं धत 4करण पर गाडी 6. 12824 के बी 2 कोच के बथ* न7बर 29 म8 म9हला या; के <थान पर पु=ष को या ा करते पकडे जाने पर भोला नाथ डे ?वजल8स इ<पे टर वारा ;बना 9टकट या ा का द@ड दे ते हुए EFT No. No.-G149292 से 1304 A वसूल कर रसीद दे कर एन खान से ह<ताBर कराया, परCतु उनका बयान ,कस आदे श अथवा ,कस -नयम के तहत भोला नाथ डे वार नह Eलया गया जानकार द जाय।
3. प सं. COMML/R/COMF/KP/B-061/10/21/1596 Dated 02-09-2021 पर जांच उपरांत जांच अ धकार ट . नाग वारा 4<तत ु Fरपोट* पर सी-नयर डी.सी.एम रायपुर वारा EFT No.-G149292 से 1304 A. भुगतान करने वाले एन. खान क1 घटना <थल Hे न न7बर 12824 के बी. 2 कोवके बथ* न7बर 29 म8 उपि<थ-त होने क1 जानकार होने और जांच अ धकार वारा उ त ?वषय को जांच म8 नह लेने पर संIान न लेते हुए एक तरफा काय*वाह ,कस -नयम के तहत क1 गई। जानकार द जाय।
4. प सं. COMML/R/COMF/KP/B-061/10/21/1596 Dated 02-09-2021 के संबं धत 4करण पर ट .वी. त ू वारा नाम का दA ु पयोJ करने पर काय*वाह 9दनांक को नजीर इमाम सेवा -नव ृ आर.पी. एफ. वारा सी-नयन डीसीम रायपुर को 9दये आवेदन पर क1 गई काय*वह क1 जानकार सय द<तावेज उपलLध करायी जाय।
5. प सं. COMML/R/COMF/KP/B-061/10/21/1596 Dated 02-09-2021 के सबं धत 4करण पर ट .वीं. त ु वारा नाम का द= ू पयोग करने पर काय*वाह 9दनांक अंगको नजीर इमाम सेवा -नव ृ आर.पी. एफ. वारा म@डल रे ल 4बंधक रायपुर को 9दये आवेदन पर क1 गई काय*वह क1 जानकार मय द<तावेज उपलLध करायी जाय।"Page 2 of 6
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.08.2023 stating as under:
"1 to 5. आपके वारा मांगी गई मद 6ं. 1 से 5 तक जानकार तत ृ ीय पB से संबं धत है , अतः जन सूचना अ धकार अ ध-नयम 05 के 8 (1) (j) के तहत 4दान नह ं क1 जा सकती ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 29.08.2023, held as under.
"1. आपका आवेदन 9दनांक 24.07.2023 म8 मांगी गई जानकार मद 6. 01 से 05 तक %यि तगत सूचना से संबं धत है , िजसके 4कटन से %यि त क1 एकांतता पर अनावOयक अ-त6मण होगा। अतः सूचना का अ धकार अ ध-नयम 2005 क1 धारा 8 (1) (ञ) के आधार पर 4दान नह क1 जा सकती। साथ ह आपके वारा मांगी गई जानकार 4OनाRमक है एवं अ ध-नयम के -नयमानुसार कोई भी लोक4ा धकार ,कसी सूचना का सज ृ न नह ं कर सकता बिSक सामJी अEभ4ेत के आधार पर उपलLध कराया जा सकता है ।
2. एत वारा इस काया*लय को 4ाTत आपके अपील का -नपटारा ,कया जाता है ।"
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 Avinash Kumar Anand, Asst. Commercial Manager (on behalf of Shri Awdesh Kumar Trivedi, Sr. DCM/CPIO) present through video- conference.
The Appellant stated that he is one of the representatives of his railway union and the persons regarding which he sought information are also members of their concerned Union. Therefore, he asked information on their behalf, however, the information has been allegedly wrongly denied by the respondent by invoking Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.Page 3 of 6
The respondent submitted that as regards the information sought by the appellant since it relates to the third party's personal information, therefore, it has been denied to the appellant under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission, at the outset, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records notes that the appellant has sought information pertaining to concerned railway officers where his locus standi is not established with any supportive documents and in that way, the information sought by her contains the elements of personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. 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, xxx
(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 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:
Page 4 of 6"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..."
Neither in the RTI application nor in the instant appeal has the Appellant brought out any overriding public interest that will be served with the disclosure of the personal information of a third-party. Despite this, the Respondent has appropriately discharged his onus for denial of information as per Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act.
Hence, no relief can be granted in this matter.
The appeal 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 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Opp: RVH Colony, Near Waltair Gate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492008 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)