Central Information Commission
Sarita Sahu vs South East Central Railway on 3 December, 2021
CIC/SECRL/A/2019/159683
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/SECRL/A/2019/159683
In the matter of:
Sarita Sahu ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Sr. Divisional Personal Officer,
South East Central Railway,
Bilaspur- 495004
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 03.08.2019
CPIO replied on : 21.08.2019
First Appeal filed on : 02.09.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 30.09.2019
Second Appeal received on : 11.12.2019
Date of Hearing : 02.12.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Smt. Sarita Sahu, participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Korba.
Respondent: Shri JS Tata, APIO & APO, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur, participated in
the hearing through video conferencing from NIC Bilaspur.
Page 1 of 5
CIC/SECRL/A/2019/159683
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed RTI Application dated 03.08.2019 seeking information as under:
"िनवेदन है क मेरे पिती दलीप सा िपता व. भ कू सा िनवास - नपापारा िसरिग ी व र अनुभाग अिभय ता, रे लपथ िबलासपुर म कायालय म ैकमेन के पद पर कायरत है उनके साथ मेरा यायालय म प रवाद चल रहा है | िजसके िलए मुझे उनक माह जून, जुलाई एवं अग त 2019 क वेतनपच क आव यकता है |"
Shri Uday Kumar Bharti, Public Information Officer (Coord.) & Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur vide letter dated 21.08.2019, denied information to the Appellant as under:
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.09.2019, upheld the CPIO's reply.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant stated that she has not received any information from the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application.Page 2 of 5
CIC/SECRL/A/2019/159683 The Respondent submitted that adequate reply has been provided to the Appellant as she is seeking third party personal information qua the instant RTI Application and the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri JS Tata, APIO & APO, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur, vide letter dated 29.11.2021, wherein the Commission has been apprised 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 information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
"16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex-husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in-laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.Page 3 of 5
CIC/SECRL/A/2019/159683 ...
...
19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizen the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency."
Keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio, the Commission upholds the stance of the Respondent public authority and accordingly finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 02.12.2021 Page 4 of 5 CIC/SECRL/A/2019/159683 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) /ADRM South East Central Railway, Divisional Railway Manager Office, Bilaspur495004
2. The Central Public Information Officer /Sr. Divisional Personal Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur- 495004
3. Mrs. Sarita Sahu Page 5 of 5