Central Information Commission
Priyansu S Mishra vs Western Railway Mumbai on 6 November, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No :CIC/WRAIL/A/2017/135249
In the matter of:
Priyansu S Mishra
...Appellant
VS
PIO & Sr. DSC/RPF
Western Railway, O/o Sr.
Divisional Security Commissioner,
R.P.F Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 400008. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 17.08.2016
CPIO reply : 21.09.2016
First Appeal : 13.10.2016
FAA Order : 21.11.2016
Second Appeal : 28.12.2016
Date of hearing : 12.02.2018, 10.10.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 17.08.2016 sought information on four points; copy (hard or soft) of the CCTV footage dated 13.08.2016 from 07.30 pm to 8.15 pm of the foot over bridge (FOB) of Dadar railway station (Mid portion of FOB). The APIO replied on 21.09.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the APIO's reply and filed first appeal on 13.10.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 21.11.2016 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of 1 Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 28.12.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri S. Rehmutallah,
Assistant Security Commissioner cum PIO,
Western Railway
During the hearing, the respondent PIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letters dated 21.09.2016 and 24.01.2018 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 21.11.2016. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that although timely reply was provided both by the respondent PIO and the first appellate authority (FAA), proper reply was not provided to the appellant as quoting section 8(1)(g)of the RTI Act in the present case for denial of the sought for information i.e. copy of the CCTV footage of the foot over bridge (FOB) is not in accordance with the proposition of the section of the Act quoted in the said reply of the respondent authority concerned as there is no apparent danger to anybody's life if the said footage is disclosed.
The Section 8(1)(g) reads as follows:
8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
2On the point no.2 of the said RTI application, the respondent had submitted that the said CCTV footage was auto deleted after 30 days. The Commission observed that this is the issue of destruction of record after RTI application was filed as the appellant had filed his RTI application on 17.08.2016 asking for the CCTV footage dated 13.08.2016 i.e. after 3 days the footage was recorded and before its auto- deletion period. Destruction of records during the pendency of RTI application would attract penalty under section 20 of the RTI Act. A Show Cause notice is issued to PIO, Mumbai to explain how and under what circumstances the said footage was allowed to be destroyed when RTI application regarding the same footage was filed on 17.08.2013 after 3 days of the recording of the footage.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union Of India Vs. Vishwas Bhamburkar [2013(297)ELT500(Del.)] observed:
6. This can hardly be disputed that if certain information is available with a public authority, that information must necessarily be shared with the applicant under the Act unless such information is exempted from disclosure under one or more provisions of the Act. It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and 3 take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act.
7. Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Even in a case where the PIO/CPIO takes a plea that the information sought by the applicant was never available with the government but, the Commission on the basis of the material available to it forms a prima facie opinion that the said information was in fact available with the government, it would be justified in directing an inquiry by a responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually available in the records of the government at some point of time or not. After all, it is quite possible that the required information may be located if a thorough search is made in which event, it could be possible to supply it to the applicant. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the wilful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case."
In view of the above, a Show Cause Notice is issued to the PIO, Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following :-
(i) Why the information was not provided: (ii) Why the PIO had asked the appellant the purpose of seeking
information as there is no provision under the RTI Act requiring an applicant to give any reason for requesting the information.
4(iii) Why the footage was destroyed even after RTI application was filed for the same footage.
The explanation to the above stated Show Cause Notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO/PIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name, address, mobile no., present place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause Notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent CPIO should note that in case of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent CPIO, Mumbai is directed to provide reply either in hard copy or in soft copy, complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order or in case the information is not available, the present respondent CPIO is directed to submit an affidavit stating that the said CCTV footage was auto-deleted within one month of the receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within the same time period.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above Show Cause and direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
5 Adjunct Order : 10.10.2018
Respondent : Shri Anup Kumar Shukla
PIO & Sr. DSC, RPF
Mumbai, Central
In his written explanation dated 10.04.2018, Shri Anup Kumar Shukla, PIO & Sr. DSC/RPF has submitted point wise explanation as under:
(i) Why the information was not provided:
The respondent submitted that the applicant was informed vide this office letter dated 21.09.2016 that the said information could not be provided u/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act.
(ii) Why the PIO had asked the appellant the purpose of seeking information as there is no provision under the RTI Act requiring an applicant to give any reason for requesting the information.
The respondent submitted that there were instances in the past where a terrorist group committed 07 serial bomb blasts in local trains on 11.07.2006 and then there was an instance of terrorist attack in Mumbai suburban trains on 26.11.2008. It is noticed that suburban trains and railway stations are highly sensitive targets for security reasons. Providing of CCTV footages of happenings on the platforms of these stations to private persons other than law enforcing agencies is therefore fraught with credible treats to life and limbs of travelling public using those stations and trains.
(iii) Why the footage was destroyed even after RTI application was filed for the same footage.
The respondent submitted that the footage was not destroyed by the respondent authority in the present case. However, the storage capacity of footage in the CCTV system is only for 30 days and after that the footage gets auto deleted/automatically destroyed.
6Decision:
Based on the written explanation of the concerned respondent authority and his oral submission made during the hearing, it was noted by the Commission that the first reply to the above mentioned RTI application was provided by the respondent on 21.09.2016 Moreover, the CPIO convinced the Commission that the reason for asking the purpose of seeking information from the appellant was taken as a precautionary measure as the sought for information was considered highly sensitive for security reasons and providing of CCTV footage to private persons other than law enforcing agencies may cause threat to the life of common travelling public including women and children which may lead to misuse of the sought for information in the manner discussed above.
The Commission finds the above explanation of Shri Anup Kumar Shukla, PIO & Sr. DSC/RPF just and proper and appreciated the fact that he had not only provided a point wise explanation to the show cause notice but had also duly complied with the order of the CIC. It would be appropriate to close the show-cause proceeding initiated against him in the interest of justice.
With the above observation, the show-cause proceeding is treated as closed.
Copies of the order be sent to all the concerned parties free of cost.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय) Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ टाचाय Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु! ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ"मा#णत स%या&पत "ित) Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप ) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date 7