Central Information Commission
Vinod Bhimrao Dhurandhar vs Central Railway on 30 November, 2021
CIC/CRAIL/C/2019/158222
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/CRAIL/C/2019/158222
In the matter of:
Vinod Bhimrao Dhurandhar ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Sr. Divisional Personnel
Officer, Central Railway,
Divisional Office, Personnel
Branch, Mumbai CST-400001
Relevant dates emerging from the Complaint:
RTI Application filed on : 02.08.2019
CPIO replied on : 06.09.2019
First Appeal filed on : 12.09.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 26.09.2019
Complaint received on : 03.12.2019
Date of Hearing : 22.10.2021
The following were present:
Complainant: Shri Vinod Bhimrao Dhurandhar participated in the hearing upon
being contacted on his telephone.
Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kumar, ASTE, Central Railway and Ms. Geeta
Krishnan, APO participated in the hearing upon being contacted on their respective
telephones.
Page 1 of 8
CIC/CRAIL/C/2019/158222
ORDER
Information Sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 02.08.2019 seeking information on the following five points:
1) "Where Railway servant working in Railway is an addressee even then instruction by Railway Administration can be given, must be given to addressee to receive any Railway official letter including charge memorandum which are addressed to addressee with wrong Designation of addressee in this subject if such documents, policies, letters, circulars, instructions, orders, notice, directions, guidelines of Competent Authority of Railway and Railway Board were issued then furnish certified copies of such documents, policies, letters, circulars, instructions, orders, notice, directions, guidelines of Competent Authority of Railway and Railway Board.
2) Furnish certified copies of all latest documents, policies, letters, circulars, instructions, orders, notice, directions, guidelines of Competent Authority of Railway and Railway Board which shows and clarify that where addressee is Railway Servant working in Railway then it is not necessary to receive any Railway official letter by addressee when any Railway official letter including Charge Memorandum is sent to addressee with wrong designation of addressee and addressee may refuse such types of letters.
3) Where Railway servant working in Railway is addressee and refuses to receive any Railway official letters which are addressed to addressee with wrong designation of addressee then on the basis of refusal DAR action can be initiated against addressee in this subject if any such documents, policies, letters, circulars, instructions, orders, notice, directions, guidelines of Competent Authority of Railway and Railway Board were issued then furnish certified copies of such documents, policies, letters, circulars, instructions, orders, notice, directions, guidelines of Competent Authority of Railway and Railway Board.
4) Furnish certified copies of all latest documents, policies, letters, circulars, instructions, orders, notice, directions, guidelines of Competent Authority of Railway and Railway Board which shows and clarify that any Railway official letters including charge memorandum are invalid and shall be invalid and shall be set aside when sent to addressee with wrong Designation of Addressee where addressee is Railway servant and is working in Indian Railway.
5) Furnish certified copies of all latest documents, policies, letters, circulars, instructions, orders, notice, directions, guidelines of Competent Authority of Railway and Railway Board regarding writing correct Designation(post) of Page 2 of 8 CIC/CRAIL/C/2019/158222 Addressee while addressing any Railway official Letters including memorandum to Addressee where addressee is Railway servant working in Railway."
Shri Abhishek, PIO and Sr. DPO, Central Railway, Mumbai CST vide letter dated 06.09.2019, provided adequate explanation in connection with the information sought by the Complainant. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.09.2019, informed as under:
Page 3 of 8CIC/CRAIL/C/2019/158222 Grounds for Complaint:
The Complainant filed a Complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. The Complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for. He has also requested to grant an award of compensation at the rate Rs. 250/- per day.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing: The Complainant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent.
Smt. Geeta Krishnan reiterated the contents of the written submission dated 21.10.2021.
The Commission remarked that the Complainant in the instant RTI Application has made mere statements and sought hypothetical queries, which are beyond the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Page 4 of 8CIC/CRAIL/C/2019/158222 A written submission has been received by the Commission from Smt. Geeta Krishnan, APO vide letter dated 21.10.2021, wherein she has apprised the Commission as under:
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a Page 5 of 8 CIC/CRAIL/C/2019/158222 mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. In this regard, the Commission relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner and another vs. State of Manipur and another, dated 12.12.2011 wherein it was held as under:
"28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant. ...
30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section
20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.
...
...
35. ... Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power and Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of Page 6 of 8 CIC/CRAIL/C/2019/158222 the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. ...
...
37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other.
38. It may be that sometime in statute words are used by way of abundant caution. The same is not the position here. Here a completely different procedure has been enacted under Section 19. If the interpretation advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted in that case Section 19 will become unworkable and especially Section 19(8) will be rendered a surplusage. Such an interpretation is totally opposed to the fundamental canons of construction..."
The Commission observes from the facts on record that the Complainant in the present RTI Application has sought for clarifications/opinions based on his grievance while the same is largely outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act In view of the above, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Complaint is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Complaint, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 29.11.2021 Page 7 of 8 CIC/CRAIL/C/2019/158222 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Addl. Divisional Railway Manager (Infra), Central Railway, Mumbai Division, DRM's Office, CST Mumbai - 400 001
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) /Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Central Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch, Mumbai CST-400001
3. Shri Vinod Bhimrao Dhurandhar Page 8 of 8