Central Information Commission
J P Tiwari vs Western Railway Mumbai on 7 July, 2021
CIC/WRAIL/C/2019/649651
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/WRAIL/C/2019/649651
In the matter of:
J. P. Tiwari ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Secy.(PG), Western Railway,
Headquarter Office, Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI Application filed on : 08.08.2019
CPIO replied on : 19.08.2019
First Appeal filed on : 21.08.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 28.08.2019
Complaint Received on : 02.09.2019
Date of Hearing : 01.07.2021
The following were present:
Complainant: Shri J P Tiwari participated in the hearing on being contacted on his
telephone.
Respondent: Mrs. Suchitra Bhandary, Dy. Secretary (Conf.) Western Railway,
Mumbai participated in the hearing on being contacted on her telephone.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/WRAIL/C/2019/649651
ORDER
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI Application dated 08.08.2019 seeking information on the following seven points:
"Seeking following information regarding Mr. Saket Kumar Mishra IRSME-1998 batch u/s-6(1) of the Act.
1) Please inform the designation and tenure the said official held till now since his absorption in the railway.
2) Please inform the work/ assignments allotted to him during his occupancy of various designations as informed against point no-1.
3) Please provide the certified copies of all departmental/ civilian complaints and their finding report received against said officer, if any.
4) Please provide the certified copies of his last five years CR.
5) Please provide the certified copies of notification and work order of all tender notified /sanctioned by the said official during his terms as Sr. DME/DME/AME in railways.
6) Please provide the certified copies of immoveable asset declaration by the said officer for last five financial years.
7) Please provide the certified copies of TDS certificate (form-15) issued by the employer for last three financial years to the said officer."
The CPIO vide letter dated 19.08.2019, informed to Complainant as under;
"In this connection, remarks on item no. 04 of your application pertaining to this office as received from the Dy.Secy.(Conf.) & APIO of General Administration department of Western Railway, HQ office, Churchgate is enclosed herewith (01 page).
In this connection, it is stated that your application is also transferred to CPIO -- Mechanical, HQ office - Churchgate and all Divisions of this Railway for providing information directly to you."
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.08.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.08.2019, enclosed a copy of the Page 2 of 6 CIC/WRAIL/C/2019/649651 remarks received by the record keeping officer i.e., APIO and Dy. Secy. (Conf.) dated 26.08.2019, which stated as under:
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. Complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent. He also requested the bench to award Compensation.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing: In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the instant hearing is being scheduled through audio conference after informing both the parties.
The Complainant stated that since he has lost the softcopy of all the RTI Applications filed so far, he is not in a position to contest his case. Hence, he requested the Commission to decide the instant case on merits. At the instance of the Commission as to whether the Complainant is having any grievances with the Respondent Public Authority, the Complainant replied in negative. He explained that he is an RTI Activist and several people approach him to explain regarding the IRORT malpractices. That being the reason, he has filed several RTI Applications.Page 3 of 6
CIC/WRAIL/C/2019/649651 The Respondent submitted that the information sought at point no. 4 of the RTI Application is denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that on remaining points of the RTI Application, the same has been transferred to the concerned CPIO-Mechanical, HQ office, Churchgate and all concerning divisions of the Railway. Upon queried by the Commission as to on what date the first reply was provided to the Complainant, the Respondent replied that the RTI Application was received in their office on 14.08.2019 and accordingly a reply was provided to the Complainant on 19.08.2019.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Parikshit Mohanpuria, CPIO-General Administration and Dy. General Manager(G) vide letter dated 28.06.2021, wherein he has enclosed a copy of the letter endorsed by the record keeping officer i.e., APIO (Gen. Admn.) and Dy. Secy. (Conf.) dated 24.06.2021. A copy of the same has also been marked to the Complainant.
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 reply has been provided only with respect to point no. 4 of the RTI Application. The Commission further observes that no information has been provided to the Complainant with respect to the remaining points of the RTI Application. In addition, the Commission notes that the Respondent has resorted to change their stance both while replying to the instant RTI Application as well as the First Appeal i.e., while replying to the RTI Application, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was invoked and also transferred the RTI Application to the concerned CPIO-Mechanical, HQ office, Churchgate, whereas while adjudicating the First Appeal, the Appellant was informed that Shri Saket Kumar Mishra, IRSME was never posted in Western Railway ever.Page 4 of 6
CIC/WRAIL/C/2019/649651 Accordingly, the Commission expresses severe displeasure against the conduct of Shri Rakesh Kumar, the then CPIO and Secretary (PG) for treating the instant matter in a cavalier manner. The Commission cautions him to remain careful in future while dealing with the matters pertaining to the RTI Act. Be it as it may, the Commission also observes that a mere transfer of the RTI Application to the concerned custodian of records does not suffice and the same cannot be termed as dispensation of justice. However, since the Complainant has approached the Commission in a Complaint, the Commission relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in the matter of Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur, 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.
...
...Page 5 of 6
CIC/WRAIL/C/2019/649651
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...."
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: 05.07.2021 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. General Manager (GA), Western Railway, Headquarter Office, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Secy.(PG), Western Railway, Headquarter Office, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020
3. Shri J. P. Tiwari Page 6 of 6