Central Information Commission
Satish Mandaokar vs Ministry Of Railways on 8 November, 2021
CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654966
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654966
In the matter of:
Satish Mandaokar ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Central Organisation Railway
Electrification, 1, Nawab
Yusuf Road, Civil Lines,
Allahabad - 211 001 (UP)
Relevant dates emerging from the Complaint:
RTI Application filed on : 14.01.2019
CPIO replied on : 27.03.2019
First Appeal filed on : Not on Record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Complaint received on : 23.10.2019
Date of Hearing : 24.09.2021
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent (despite being served the hearing notice)
Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, Asst. Vigilance Officer, CORE, Allahabad,
participated in the hearing through video conferencing from NIC Allahabad.
Page 1 of 7
CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654966
ORDER
Information Sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 14.01.2019 seeking information as under:
"Kindly provide us all Investigation Reports including CVC, Vigilance, CBI, Railway department etc regarding Underweight Galvanized Steel Structures Supplied by M/s Jain Steel Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab for Indian Railway."
The CPIO vide online reply dated 27.03.2019, denied information u/s 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Complainant. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission vide this instant Complaint.
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 for suitable action to be initiated against Public Information Officer and the information sought by Complainant be provided at the earliest.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.
The Respondent submitted that investigation regarding underweight Galvanized Steel Structures Supplied by M/s Jain Steel Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab for Indian Railway is still under process and as such information sought in the instant RTI Application is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. Upon being queried by the Commission whether the Complainant was the original applicant in the averred case/complaint which is pending against M/s Jain Steel Industries, the Respondent clarified that the case for which the Complainant Page 2 of 7 CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654966 has sought the information in the instant RTI Application was logged on 28.08.2018 on ERVIN portal and the same has not been initiated by the Complainant.
The written submissions has been sent to the Complainant from Shri Mohammad Kasim, Dy. Chief Electrical Engineer, vide letter dated 17.09.2021 and the same has been marked to the Commission, wherein the Complainant has been apprised as under:
Page 3 of 7CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654966 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 mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. Since the Respondent has rightly denied the information sought in the instant RTI Application under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act to the Complainant, hence no malafide intention of the Respondent has been established.
The Commission relies on one judgment of full bench of the Commission in the matter of C. Seetharamaiah vs. Commissionerate of Customs & Central Excise [File No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238], which is the context of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"37. ...and what was more any disclosure of this information to the appellant at this stage would undoubtedly cause injury to the CBI's presentation of the case on behalf of the prosecution before the Trial Court. Forcing CBI to provide to the appellant evidence, records and documents it otherwise would not provide to him or provide to him only through the directive of the Trial Court, would have the effect of interfering with the CBI's right to marshall evidence and to present it in the manner or in the sequence, which in its judgment, would be necessary to prove the guilt of the accused. This is CBI's right as the complaint before the Trial Court, which would be seriously compromised if the accused were allowed to force it to give out information and documents through the RTI Act.Page 4 of 7
CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654966
38. The central point of this line of argument is that no attempt to harm the integrity of the prosecution proceeding before the Court as already laid down in several laws of the land, should be allowed to succeed by casting on the public authority or the prosecuting agency obligations which criminal and evidence laws do not assign to them. No public interest is served by such actions. On the contrary, public interest is positively harmed when interested parties are given the privilege of interrogating a prosecuting agency about its actions vis-à-vis that party through an RTI proceedings when the prosecution before a Trial Court is already extant."
The Commission further relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under 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 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. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."Page 5 of 7
CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654966 Keeping in view of the totality of circumstances discussed above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the denial of information by the CPIO. Be that as it may, the Commission finds that although an appropriate reply has been provided by the Respondent, yet the same bears considerable delay. Therefore, the Commission admonishes the concerned CPIO for not providing any reply within stipulated time-frame as per the provisions of RTI act and cautions them to remain careful in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act.
With the above observations, the 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 08.11.2021 Page 6 of 7 CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654966 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) Central Organisation Railway Electrification, 1, Nawab Yusuf Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad-211 001(UP)
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Tral Organisation Railway Electrification, 1, Nawab Yusuf Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad - 211 001 (UP).
3. Shri Satish Mandaokar Page 7 of 7