Central Information Commission
Mrrameshwar Ram vs Ministry Of Railways on 9 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.6, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Tel: 01126182597/Telefax:26182598
Appeal No.:CIC/VS/A/2014/000807/BJ
Appellant: Shri Rameshwar Ram
Rly Qr No.L/72'F'
AT + PO: Adra
Dist. Purulia723 121 (WB)
Respondent(s): CPIO
Deputy Secretary (Estt.)
Railway Board
Ministry Of Railways
New Delhi110 001
Date of Hearing : 09/06/2016
Date of Decision : 09/06/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 27.06.2012
CPIO's response 22.08.2012
Date of filing the First appeal 15.09.2012
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 11.04.2014
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant has sought certified copies of the Caste certificates of the Gazetted officers belonging to SC & ST category of RBSS, RBSSS and Misc. Cadre working in Railway Board, whose list is enclosed with the application.
The CPIO vide letter dated 22/8/2012 had sought exemption from disclosure of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, stating that the information sought had no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the individual.
Page 1 of 3Dissatisfied with the reply furnished by the CPIO, the appellant filed his first appeal before the FAA. FAA's order is not on record.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Adesh Kumar, Under Secretary(EII)(M:9717647155) and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Section Officer (ERBI) (M:9717647040);
The appellant remained absent during the hearing. The respondent informed that they had already sent a reply vide their letter dated 22/08/2012 seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was further informed that a similar matter had already been decided by the Commission vide decision no. CIC/AD/A/2013/000377/VS/07408 dated 30/07/2014. The appellant remained absent to contest the submissions of the respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
In the case of Shri Harish Kumar V. Provost MarshalcumAppellate Authority & Anr., the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 253/2012 dated 30/03/2012 observed:
"There can be no dispute that the information sought by the appellant was relating to a third party and supplied by a third party. We may highlight that the appellant also wanted to know the caste as disclosed by his fatherinlaw in his service record. The PIO was thus absolutely right in, response to the application for information of the appellant, calling upon the appellant to follow the third party procedure under Section 11. Reliance by the PIO on Section 8(1)(j) which exempts from disclosure of personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and which would cause unwanted invasion of the privacy of the individual was also apposite. Our constitutional aim is for a casteless society and it can safely be assumed that the disclosure made by a person of his or her caste is intended by such person to be kept confidential. The appellant however as aforesaid, wanted to steal a march over his fatherinlaw by accessing information, though relating to and supplied by the fatherinlaw, without allowing his fatherinlaw to oppose to such request."
In the light of the above observation, the Commission is of the view that the stand taken by the respondent is correct and the information sought cannot be disclosed.
DECISION:
Based on the facts available on record and submission made by the respondents and in the light of aforesaid judgment, no further action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.Page 2 of 3
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3