Central Information Commission
Sopna Rani vs East Coast Railway (Bhubaneswar) on 12 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/641007
Sopna Rani .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Pr. Chief
Engineer, East Coast Railway,
Rail Sadan, C.S Pur,
Bhubaneswar - 751017 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025
Date of Decision : 12.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
(Total number of 08 Second Appeals of the Appellant are listed today for
hearing before the Commission)
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.07.2024
CPIO replied on : 12.08.2024
First appeal filed on : 13.08.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 11.09.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.09.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.07.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"1. Kindly provide the certified copy of that specific page from which the Dy.CE/TM/BBS has based the rejection of numerous RTI applications, citing the "decision" dated 13.11.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 titled as Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. This request pertains to the denial of information mentioned in letter No. W.7/637/TM/RTI/3284 dated 30.5.2024.
2. Kindly provide the total number of RTI applications denied by the Dy.CE/TM/BBS to give information, from the date of joining in East Coast Railway (ECOR) until 11.07.2024 by referring as "decision" dated 13.11.2019 of Hon'ble Supreme Courty of India in Civil appeal No 10044 of 2010 titled as Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal".
3. Kindly provide the certified copy of note sheets from the file in which the Dy. CE/TM/BBS corresponded regarding the denial of RTI information as mentioned in letter No W.7/637/TM/RTI/3755 dt 24.06.2024."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.08.2024 stating as under:
"In regard to above, the information pertaining to Headquarters Engineering Department, East Coast Railway/Bhubaneswar as sought is enclosed herewith for your information please.
Though adequate care has been taken to furnish the relevant information to you, in case you feel any information is missing or is not furnished, you may kindly bring the same to the notice of the undersigned for further clarification. In case you want any fresh information in this case which was not asked for in the original application, you might ask for the same by submitting a fresh application along with the required fee. In case you are still not satisfied with the information furnished, you may prefer an appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Bridge Engineer, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-17 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of this letter under section 19 of RTI Act'2005.
An appeal should be addressed to the Appellate Authority containing name and address of the Appellant particulars of the orders against which the appeal is made, brief facts leading to the appeal, prayer or Page 2 of 6 relief sought, grounds for the prayer or relief and verification by the appellant. For submission of the Appeal no fee is required to be paid."
3. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 09.08.2024 stating as under:
"1 The Judgment of Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 titled as Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal is available in Supreme Court of India website.
2 The information sought is denied under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which may endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
3 The information sought is denied under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which may endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes and also denied as per DOPT Office Memorandum No. No.1/20/2009-IR Dtd. 23rd June, 2009."
4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 11.09.2024, held as under:
"1 The Judgment of Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 titled as Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal is available in Supreme Court of India website.
2 The information sought is denied under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which may endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
3 The information sought is denied under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which may endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes and also denied as per DoPT Office Memorandum No. No.1/20/2009-IR Dtd. 23 June, 2009."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 6Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Sankar Prasad, representative of the Appellant present in person.
Respondent: Shri Rajinder Patel, Dy. Chief Engineer & PIO present through Video-Conference.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 13.09.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
7. The representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date information has not been provided to the Appellant.
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete factual position in the matter, as per the documents available on their record has been informed to the Appellant.
9. The third party is also present in the hearing along with the Respondent and he objected sharing his personal information with the Appellant and her representative. During the hearing, it revealed that the representative of the Appellant namely Shri Sankar Prasad had also been filing RTI applications and Second Appeals seeking similar information. CIC website reveals that so far 20 numbers Second Appeals/Complaints have been disposed of by the Commission which were filed by Shri Sankar Prasad. The third party also informed that he was related to the representative of the Appellant being his co-brother (their wives being real sisters) till Shri Sankar Prasad's marriage resulted in divorce.
Decision:
10. During the hearing, the Respondent orally objected the appearance and identity of the representative of the Appellant i.e. Shri Sankar Prasad. However, in three Appeal bearing Nos. CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/637668; CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/641007 and CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/642277, the Respondent had filed written objection w.r.t the same. The Commission observes that the signatures of the Appellant are a 'copy-paste of scanned signature' on various documents. Further, the Appellant had typed her name as 'Sopna Rani' but signed as 'Swopna Rani'. There are no signatures of the Appellant in the written submissions filed by her.
Page 4 of 6Further, the representative of the Appellant had not annexed his identity proof. On being confronted with these facts, the representative of the Appellant namely Shri Sankar Prasad firstly, showed aggression and then refused to cooperate and also refused to disassociate with the proceedings. Hence, assistance of the local police was sought in order to clear the doubts. Thereafter, the representative of the Appellant namely Shri Sankar Prasad began to cooperate and made a phone call to establish bona fides of the Appellant and also showed his identity card, a copy of which was taken for being uploaded in the e-book along with the attendance. Hearing resumed once the identity and bona fide was established.
11. The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of information by the PIO. The Commission observes that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant as per his RTI application and as per the documents available on their records at the relevant time. Further, the queries of the Appellant are hypothetical in nature.
12. It is an admitted fact that the PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant.
13. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
14. No intervention of the Commission is warranted 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 5 of 6 Copy To:
THE FAA, Office of the Pr. Chief Engineer, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, C.S Pur, Bhubaneswar - 751017 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)