Central Information Commission
Saidur Rahman vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 8 June, 2020
CIC/NRALF/A/2018/152370
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NRALF/A/2018/152370
In the matter of:
Saidur Rahman ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Northern Railway,
Divisional Hospital,
Lucknow
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 15.02.2018 FA : 05.04.2018 SA : 24.08.2018
CPIO : 19.03.2018 FAO : 13.06.2018 Hearing : 29.05.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over the phone
Page 1 of 5
CIC/NRALF/A/2018/152370
Respondent: Dr. Pratibha Thakur, Sr. DMO and CPIO (Medical), Northern
Railway, Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, heard over the phone
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 15.02.2018 seeking information on ten points pertaining to CMD's order no. 43-Med/Store/Policy dated 21.04.2015, including, inter-alia;
(a) If the above noted CMD's order has been cancelled, provide a legible certified copy of the same.
(b) In case the above noted CMD's order has not been cancelled and doctors refuse to provide the medicines as per the said order, then, provide legible certified copies of the directions/circular/policy/rule containing the grounds for refusal to give medicines.
(c) In case the above noted CMD's order has not been cancelled and the alternative medicines are supllied, then provide legible certified copies of the directions/circular/policy/rule binding the doctors and pharmacists who violate the above noted order, etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 19.03.2018, provided requisite information to the appellant. However, with regards to point no. 5, the CPIO denied information under section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied, appellant filed the first appeal dated 05.04.2018. FAA, vide order dated 13.06.2018, provided point wise reply to the appellant.Page 2 of 5
CIC/NRALF/A/2018/152370 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by respondent. He requested to 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 by the respondent on point nos. 1- 5 of his RTI application dated 15.02.2018. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information sought for.
The respondent submitted that vide point nos. 1 - 3, the appellant is seeking information pertaining to the cancellation of CMD's order no. 43- Med/Store/Policy dated 21.04.2015. However, since the said order is being followed, the appellant has been informed accordingly vide letter dated 19.03.2018. With respect to the information sought vide point no. 4, the respondent submitted that since no such directions/circular/policy/rules are available on record, the appellant was informed accordingly vide the above noted letter and also vide the order of FAA dated 13.06.2018. She further submitted that the appellant, vide point no. 5 of his RTI application, has sought third party information. Hence, the same has been denied under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that a categorical reply on point nos. 2 and 3 of the RTI application in question has not been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to furnish an appropriate and categorical reply, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, to the appellant on the Page 3 of 5 CIC/NRALF/A/2018/152370 above noted points within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
With respect to the information sought vide point no. 4, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply, as available on record, has been provided to the appellant. The Commission, further, agrees with the respondent that the information sought vide point no. 5 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. Thus, the exemption of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act would be applicable in the present case. The respondent, however, has inadvertently invoked Section 11 in order to deny third party information. Section 11(1) is invoked in order to obtain the consent of the concerned third party regarding the furnishing/non-furnishing of his information. The exemptions, however, are afforded under Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. In view of the reply furnished by the respondent, the Commission would like to counsel the CPIO to be more careful in future while quoting the exemptions under the RTI Act, 2005.
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.
AmitaPandove(अिमतापांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक / Date: 29.05.2020 Page 4 of 5 CIC/NRALF/A/2018/152370 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) , Northern Railway, Divisional Hospital, Charbagh, Lucknow-226005
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Northern Railway, Divisional Hospital, Charbagh, Lucknow-226005
3. Shri Saidur Rahman Page 5 of 5