Central Information Commission
Kanhu Charan Das vs West Central Railway on 27 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/WECRL/A/2023/133940
Kanhu Charan Das .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
RTI Cell, West Central Railway,
Jabalpur - 482001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.11.2024
Date of Decision : 26.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 21.02.2023
First appeal filed on : 17.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 28.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.08.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 11.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"Permanent Home with present working place address of Sh. Mewa Lal Track maintenance IV WCR/JBPD/NA, HRMS ID employee no. 5071304102 who transferred on mutual basis from SER/PKGP/EE223/TRF, ECELL/MLBB195/2022 of DRM(p) KGP dated Page 1 of 5 06.09.2022 and joined under Jabalpur Division Deptt on mutual inter railway transfer. Copy enclosed for reference and quick dispose."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.02.2023 stating as under:
कं. मांगी गई जानकार द जाने वाल जानकार
Permanent(Home) and present सूचना अ धकार अ ध नयम के तहत
working place address of Sh.
Mewa Lal S/O Late Ram Raj Track थड पाट! क" #यि%तगत जानकार
maintenance IV WCR/JBP नह ं द जा सकती ।
Division.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 28.03.2023, held as under.
"'(तुत अपील के गहन अ*ययन उपरांत मेरे आदे शानुसार 'करण के डी/ड पीआईओ मंडल इंजी नयर (मु3यालय) / पमरे जबलपुर 7वारा उपल8ध जानकार 02 'प9 म: आपको नःशु=क भेजी जा रह है । म@ डी/ड पीआईओं 7वारा Aदये गये जबाब से संतुBट हूँ आशा है Dक आप भी डी/ड पीआईओ 7वारा Aदये गये जबाब से संतुBट होग: । इस 'कार, '(तुत 'थम अपील Aदनांक 16.03.2023 ('ािEत Aदनांक 22.03.2023) का न(तारण ऑफलाईन Dकया 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: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri P K Srivastava, Divisional Engineer present through Video- Conference.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent submitted that they have categorically informed the Appellant 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.Page 2 of 5
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant is not their employee.
Decision:
The Commission, after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information on his RTI application. On the other hand, the Respondent in his response has categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of a third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not disclosed any larger public interest for seeking third party information.
The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the Respondent that the information sought by the Appellant relates to the personal information of a 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, 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 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 Page 3 of 5 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..."
Further, the Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
No intervention of the Commission is required in the 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 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, RTI Cell, West Central Railway, Jabalpur - 482001 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)