Central Information Commission
Shahahwaz Khan vs North Central Railway on 3 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NCRAL/A/2023/645696
Shahahwaz Khan .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
North Central Railway, Railway Officers
Colony, Jhansi - 284003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.12.2024
Date of Decision : 02.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 13.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 25.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 14.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"Shri NC Meena Working As A Ticket Checking Staff in North Central Railway Jhansi Division Please Provide The Following Information Regarding Him 1-When Shri MC Meena Joined His Services in Railways.Page 1 of 4
2- What Was the Basis on Which Shri M.C Meena Has Been Recruited in Railways
3. What is The Current Salary of Shi MC Meena in Railways 4-How Many Leaves Shri M.C Meena Has Taken in last Month During His Service Please Provide Copy Of it.
5. Is There Any Type of Complaint is Registered Against Shri M.C Meena During His Service Whether By Railways Or Any Individual If Yes Please Provide Copy Of it"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.06.2023 stating as under:
"Information pertaining to commercial department of Jhansi division of NC Railways is as follows:
1. Third party information not covers under RTI Act. 2 Third party information not covers under RTI Act. 3 Third party information not covers under RTI Act. 4 Third party information not covers under RTI Act. 5 Third party information not covers under RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20.07.2023, held as under.
"के य सच ू ना अ धकार / मंडल रे ल बंधक (वा.) झांसी वारा प !दनांक 13.06.2023 के मा#यम से आवेदक को अवगत कराया गया है *क मांगी गयी जानकार तत ृ ीय प- क. होने के कारण दान नह ं क. जा सकती है ।
आवेदक को अवगत कराया जाता है *क मांगी गयी अ धकतर जानकार 1ी एम. सी. मीना क. 3यि5तगत जानकार है । आरट आई क. धारा 8 (1) (j) के अ तग8त कोई भी ऐसी 3यि5तगत जानकार िजसका *कसी लोक *;याकलाप< या !हत से स=बंध नह ं है ऐसी जानकार को उपल?ध कराने का ावधान नह ं है । आवेदक ने मल ू आरट आई म@ कह ं भी मांगी गयी जानकार को *कसी लोक *;याकलाप< या !हत से कोई स=बंध नह ं दशा8या है . इसCलये जानकार दान करना स=भव नह ं है । आवेदक को यह भी अवगत कराया जाता है *क आपके वारा मांगी गयी जानकार Dनवाचक Eवभाव क. है जब*क आरट आई एक DनोFर का पटल नह ं है । इसके अGFHर5त अ य कोई जानकार शेष नह ं है ।
उपरो5त अपील का JनEतारण *कया जाता है ।"Page 2 of 4
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 VC.
Respondent: Shri Anil Srivastava, APIO-cum-ACM, attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that the Appellant is not their employee, and the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission interjected and asked the Appellant to explain his locus or to establish larger public interest in seeking third party information, the Appellant failed to provide a cogent reply.
A written submission has been received from PIO vide letter dated 23.12.2024, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"In the aforementioned case, it is most humbly submitted that the application of the complainant had received to this office, which reply was given vide this office letter dated 13.06.2023 (Copy enclosed).
After that, the complainant had filed the first Appeal before the first Appellate authority, the Appeal had also disposed vide letter dated 20.07.2023 (Copy enclosed). The Application of the second Appeal filed by the Complainant before the Hon'ble CIC New Delhi has received to this office on 20.12.2024. In which, the desired information has provided vide this office letter dated 23.12.2024, the copy of the same is also being provided to the complainant. (Copy enclosed)"
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that the CPIO has furnished a suitable Page 3 of 4 reply, applying the relevant provision of law to deny third party information. Since there is no legal infirmity in the reply sent by the Respondent, no cause of action subsists in this case under the RTI Act for further adjudication.
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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)