Central Information Commission
Lakshmi Bai Arakh vs West Central Railway on 17 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/WECRL/A/2024/137790
Lakshmi Bai Arakh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway
Manager, RTI Cell, West Central
Railway, Jabalpur - 482001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.08.2025
Date of Decision : 17.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.08.2024
CPIO replied on : 30.08.2024
First appeal filed on : 14.09.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.10.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.11.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 05.08.2024 seeking the following information:
" व. रामनाथ आ मज कामता साद हे पर खलासी कै.वै. एन.के.जे. सेवा नव ृ दनाक 30.04.1994 मृ यु दनांक 05.05.2010 क# वधवा पु%ी Page 1 of 8 &ीमती ल'मी बाई के प*रवा*रक प+ शन करण म+ क याण नर./क &ी वनोद कुमार माथुर 1वारा ततु *रपोट3 एवं गवाह5 के बयान क# स या पत त6ल प दान क# जावे।"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.08.2024 stating as under:
"उपरो9त वषयांतग3त आपक आवेदन म+ चाह. गई जानकार. न<नानस ु ार है :-
मद Deemed PIO िजनक# सहायता ल. गई ववरण
सभी सहा. का6म3क अ@धकार. (क याण) पनरे , जबलपुर एने9सर-ए
सूचना का अ@धकार अ@ध नयम, 2005 क# धारा 5 (4) के अंतग3त आपके करण पर उपरो9त उ लेBखत Deemed PIO क# सहायता ल. गई थी एवं सूचना का अ@धकार अ@ध नयम, 2005 क# धारा 6 (5) के तहत अ@ध नयम के ावधान5 के Cकसी भी उ लंघन के 6लये भी वह. िज<मेदार रह+ गे।
Encl. dated 28.08.2024 is as under:
आवे दका 1वारा मांगी गयी जानकार. सूबना का अ@धकार अ@ध नयम 2005 क# धारा 8 (1) (छ) के अनुसार दान नह.ं क# जा सकती।"
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 15.10.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. In the meantime, the Appellant filed a writ petition bearing No. WP No. 17121/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of MP, Jabalpur seeking early hearing of this Appeal which was allowed by the Court vide order dated 23.06.2025. The operative portion of the order is as under: -
"...Considering the aforesaid, this petition is disposed off by directing the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order before respondent No. 2, who in turn is directed to consider and decide the pending Second Appeal (Annexure- P/5), if not already decided, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and communicate the outcome to the petitioner.Page 2 of 8
Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."
6. In compliance with the above directions, the instant Appeal is listed today for hearing on out of turn basis.
7. A written submission dated 21.08.2025 filed by Shri Sachipati Nandan, APO, Western Central Railway, Jabalpur is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"उपरो9त वषयांतग3त माननीय मG ु य सच ू ना आय9 ु त के संद6भ3त प% के साथ &ीमती ल'मी बाई आरख प% ु ी व. रामनाथ का आवेदन इस काया3लय को ाIत हुआ िजसम+ व. कम3चार. क# प% ु ी ने सच ू ना अ@धकार. अ@ध नयम Cक धारा (6) (1) के तहत आवेदन एवं थम अपील म+ (क) व. कम3चार. रामनाथ आ मज कामता साद हे पर खलासी कै.वै. एन. के. जे सेवा नव ृ दनांक 30.04.1994 म ृ यु दनांक 05.05.2010 क# वधवा प% ु ी के पा*रवा*रक प+शन करण म+ क याण नर./क &ी वनोद कुमार माथरु 1वारा तत ु *रपोट3 एवं गवाह5 के बयान क# स या पत त6ल प मांगी गई थी।
1. उपरो9त (क) के संबंध म+ आवे दका &ीगती ल'मी बाई का आवेदन द. 05.08.2024/आरट.आई काया3लय से ाIत आवेदन का प% K. जबल/आरट.आई/912/24 द. 07.08.2024 का जवाब इस काया3लय के प% K. जबल/का/ नप/पी.सी. आर. 1392 द. 28.08.2024 के 1वारा दया गया है ।
2. &ीमती ल'मी बाई आरख प% ु ी व. रामनाथ 1वारा उपरो9त जवाब से संतMु ट न होते हुये माननीय मG ु य सच ू ना आयु9त के पास अपील क# जो द.
18.09.2024 को इस काया3लय म+ ाIत हुई है , िजसका जवाब द. इस काया3लय के प% K. जबल/का/ नप/पीसी-आर. 1392 दनांक 10.10.2024 के 1वारा द. गई। आवे दका को संदभ3-3 के प%ानस ु ार दनांक 07.07.2022 एवं दनांक 14.05.2024 को स@ू चत Cकया गया है Cक "आपके करण म+ क याण नर./क के 1वारा जांच कराई गई एवं जांच उपरांत करण को स/म अ@धकार. के सम/ तत ु Cकया गया। जांच के दौरान आपके सगे भाई &ी मेवालाल ने अपने बयान एवं शपथ प% तत ु कर आपके बारे म+ बताया Cक आपने दस ू रा ववाह फक#राराम पता गर.बाराम से Cकया है , िजसक# पिु Mट आपके पडो6सय5 ने भी क# है । जांच म+ आपके संगे भाई &ी मेवालाल ने संप कर रसीद एवं खसरा नं. 20एस म+ 0.9200 का कृ ष भ6ू म से संबं@धत जमीन के कागजात तत ु Cकये िजसम+ आपका नाम ल'मी दे वी प त &ी फक#रा राम दज3 है । अतः आपके सगे भाई &ी मेवालाल 1वारा जांच के दौरान तत ु शपथ प% क# त/ बयान तथा आपके चार Page 3 of 8 पडो6सय5 के 1वारा दये गये माणीकरण के आधार पर आपका वत3मान म+ वधवा होना तीत नह.ं होता है । अतः नयमानस ु ार आप प*रवार प+ शन हे तु पा% नह.ं है । इस6लए प*रवार प+शन हे तु आपका आवेदन नर त Cकया जाता है ।"
िजसके पTचात ् आवे दका ल'मी बाई ( वधवा प% ु ी) ने क याण नर./क &ी वनोद कुमार माथरु 1वारा तत ु *रपोट3 एवं गवाह5 के बयान क# स या पत त6ल प मांगी गई थी, िजसे सच ू ना का अ@धकार अ@ध नयम 2005 क# धारा 8 (1) छ के अनस ु ार दान करने से मना Cकया गया था।
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Sachipati Nandan, APO, Western Central Railway, Jabalpur present through video conference.
8. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondents while filing the same in CIC is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service of Second Appeal in the first instance. It is also noted that the Appellant has not made the concerned PIO or FAA as the Respondent in the Writ Petition filed by her before the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. Thus, delay, if any, is attributable to herself and no one else.
9. The Appellant stated that she is aggrieved by the denial of information from the Respondent ignoring the fact that she has sought a copy of inquiry report and statement of witnesses pertaining to her own family pension case.
10. The Respondent while inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission apprised the Bench that the Appellant has been informed vide letters dated 07.07.2022 and 14.05.2024 that "In your case, an inquiry was conducted by the Welfare Inspector and after investigation, the case was presented before the competent authority. During the investigation, your real brother Shri Mevalal presented his statement and affidavit and told about you that you have married Fakira Ram, son of Garibar Ram, for the second time, which has also been confirmed by your neighbors.
During the investigation, your real brother Mr. Mewalal presented property tax receipt and land papers related to agricultural land of 0.9200 in Khasra No. 20S in which your name is recorded as Lakshmi Devi husband Mr. Fakira Ram. Therefore, on the basis of the copy of affidavit/statement presented by your real brother Mr. Mewalal during the investigation and the certification given by your four neighbors, it does not appear that you are a widow at present."
Page 4 of 8Further, the information sought by the Appellant through RTI application contains the elements of personal information of third-party and disclosure of inquiry report and statement of witness would endanger the life and safety of such persons, accordingly, it has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observed that main premise of instant Appeal was denial of information by the Respondent under Section 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act. The name of the Welfare Officer as also the main contents of his report has already been conveyed by the Respondents as reproduced above. The Respondent clarified that during investigation by the Welfare Officer it was established that the Appellant solemnized second marriage with one Shri Fakira Ram, which was deposed by her real brother Shri Mewalal on affidavit. Therefore, she is not entitled for widow pension anymore. This factual position has already been intimated to the Appellant.
However, the inquiry report of Welfare Officers and statement of witnesses as sought by the Appellant being exempted from disclosure has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act. Appellant during the hearing did not contest the findings of the Welfare Officer that she has re- married and is thus, not a widowed daughter entitled for family pension. This also explains as to why the Appellant has not impleaded the Respondent Public Authority in the array of parties in Writ Petition No. 17121/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of MP, Jabalpur.
12. The Commission is of considered view that the Respondent has appropriately denied copies of the document sought by the Appellant citing Section 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act; and it is also evident that it contains personal information of third-party, which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, Respondent has conveyed to the Appellant the contents of the Welfare Officer's Report, his name as also the name of Appellant's brother who has furnished his statement on Oath before the Welfare Officer.
13. Now, during the hearing it is also confirmed that after solemnization of re-marriage, she is not entitled to family pension as a widowed daughter. During the hearing, she has not challenged the factum of being remarried. The interest of justice is served with the Respondent already sharing a copy of their written submission with the Appellant which contains the broad findings of the Welfare Officer's Report as also the relevant names. Hence, no further relief need be granted in this matter.
Page 5 of 814. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Emphasis Supplied.
15. Neither in the RTI application nor in the instant appeal has the Appellant brought out any overriding public interest that will be served with the disclosure of the personal information of a third-party. Reply given by the CPIO is upheld.
16. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, this Bench has come across multiple cases in the recent past where the Appellants neither filed any proof of service of Second Appeals on the Respondent while filing the same before the Commission nor impleaded the Respondent Public Authority in the array of necessary parties while filing the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court for getting the orders in their favour seeking early hearing of their Second Appeals. This takes the Respondent Public Authority by total surprise. It is also observed that in the cases where Appellants served a copy of their Second Appeals or Complaints, while filing the same in the CIC, on the Respondent Public Authority, the relief as is admissible is generally provided by the Respondents before coming for the hearing in CIC, which fulfils the object of Page 6 of 8 the RTI Act. It also gives the Respondent an opportunity to provide their side of arguments and helps in early disposal of the case in CIC.
17. The Commission would like to remind the Appellant/Complainant (in the cases filed in CIC) of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is fundamental requirement for due process in legal proceedings and crucial for fairness, transparency, and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bonafide interest of the Appellant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The necessity of advance service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the fact of filing of a case in CIC, arguments of the Appellant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the applicant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Appellants before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus, leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal disposal that meets the objective of the RTI Act. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Appellant/Complainant to serve copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents. This process is followed across all Courts, Tribunals, Commissions, Appellate Authorities starting from the Court of Naib-Tehsildar upwards right up to the highest Court of the Country. Many Courts do not even accept the filing unless a copy of the same is served on the opposite party and a proof of the same is provided. The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 also provide for the same under its Regulation No. 10. Even if it was not codified by the CIC the requirement cannot be obviated in the interest of justice and fair play.
18. In few cases, the Commission has experienced that the hearing notice sent to the Respondent Public Authority, on the address provided by the Appellant/Complainant in his Appeal/Complaint, is received back undelivered with remarks like "Address incomplete", "No such addressee at this address", "Addressee left", "incorrect address", etc. This further causes delay in disposal of Second Appeals/Complaints beside burdening the Registry of the concerned IC for repeated issuance of hearing notice and also ascertaining the correct address of the Respondents. Had the Appellant/Complainant served a copy of the same to Respondent and proof submitted in the initial stage itself, the address of the Respondents gets confirmed and such delay would be avoided.
Page 7 of 819. In view of the above, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Central Information Commission for necessary action to rectify the continued short comings as noted above before Diarizing each Second Appeal/Complaint.
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 Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, RTI Cell, West Central Railway, Jabalpur - 482001 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)