Central Information Commission
Rahul Singh vs Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corpn ... on 8 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/ IRCTC/A/2025/605750
Rahul Singh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
IRCTC Ltd.,
4th Floor, Tower-D,
World Trade Center, Nauroji Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 029 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.01.2026
Date of Decision : 08.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.07.2024
CPIO replied on : 18.09.2024
First appeal filed on : 16.10.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.11.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.01.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"1. Mr. Nishant Jaiswal (Employee Code: 6419) was appointed as a DGM/IT in IRCTC against the advertised positions in the advertisement of year 2011. Please provide the certified copy of his Java Certification which has been submitted to the organization."Page 1 of 6
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.09.2024 stating as under:
"You were advised to visit IRCTC Corporate Office, B-148, Statesman House, 12th Floor, Barakhamba Road, NewDelhi-110001 with prior intimation to inspect the records pertaining to the concerned RTI application during the official hours on any working day (mutually decided) at IRCTC Office, New Delhi. Instead of visiting this office to inspect the records for the required information, you sent e-mails on 31.08.2024 & 11.09.2024.
In view of the above, it appears that you are not interested to visit this office for inspection of file/record and collect the required Information. However, you are hereby given a last chance for visiting IRCTC, Corporate Office, New Delhi in connection with your RTI application. You are required to come to this Office by 30.09.2024 and you are required to intimate this office in advance prior to your visit. If you do not visit by the date given above, it will be presumed that you are not interested to inspect and collect the required information as per your RTI application and it will be treated that the RTI application is disposed of."
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.10.2024. The FAA disposed of first appeal vide order dated 08.11.2024 with the following observations:
"I have gone through your complete RTI application and Appeal in detail along with the reply of CPIO. It is informed that vide letters dated 23.08.2024 & 18.09.2024, you were advised to visit IRCTC Corporate Office, B-148, Statesman House, 12th Floor, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- 110001 with prior intimation and inspect the records pertaining to the concerned RTI application during the official hours on any working day (mutually decided) at IRCTC Office, New Delhi.
But you were not interested to inspect and collect the required information as per your RTI application, accordingly, your RTI application was disposed off.
Now, on getting your RTI appeal cited under reference (2), the 3rd Party was again approached but the 3rd Party has again denied to share the information sought by you to anyone. Accordingly, the information cannot be disclosed under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it is devoid of justified larger public interest."Page 2 of 6
4. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Saurabh Singh, Executive and Shri Dinesh, RTI Assistant present in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 31.01.2025 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Hearing notice sent to the Appellant received back 'undelivered' with the postal remarks "no such person".
7. The Respondent submitted that complete factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant. Further, the information sought is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Respondent further apprised the Commission that the Appellant and the RTI applicant namely Shri Manoj Kumar had filed numerous RTI applications in their office. But they never appear at the time of hearing of their First Appeals.
Decision:
8. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Second Appeal was non-receipt of information from the Respondent. In this regard, it was noted that reply in the matter has already been provided to the Appellant.
9. The Commission observes that the Appellant had asked information which is related to personal information of third party and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not disclosed any larger public interest in disclosing the information.
Page 3 of 610. 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;.."
11. 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 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 Page 4 of 6 access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
12. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no mala fide intention of obstructing the information to the Appellant, hence no action is warranted under the RTI Act.
13. The Commission further observes that a striking similarity exists between the present appeal filed by the Appellant herein and the complaint filed by another applicant namely Manoj Kumar, decided by this Bench in File No. CIC/IRCTC/C/2024/132958 dated 07.01.2026. The Commission noted that both applicants have the same residential address. Both applicants have sought identical / substantially similar information relating to the educational qualifications / certifications of the same third-party employee of IRCTC. In the case of Manoj Kumar, no proof of identity was enclosed on record.
14. In view of the above, the Commission expresses serious doubts regarding the distinct identity and independent existence of the two applicants, particularly when the same address is used, identical information is sought, and neither applicant appeared before the Commission to clarify the matter.
15. Hence, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011-26107040 Date : 08.01.2026 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, IRCTC Ltd., 4th Floor, Tower-D, World Trade Center, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi - 110 029 Shri Rahul Singh, Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)