Central Information Commission
Satish Mandaokar vs Ministry Of Railways on 8 November, 2021
CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654959
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654959
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 : 21.01.2019
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First Appeal filed on : Not on Record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Complaint received on : 24.10.2019
Date of Hearing : 24.09.2021
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent (despite being served the hearing notice)
Respondent: Shri Mohammad Kasim, Dy. Chief Electrical Engineer, Ambala
Cantt., representing CPIO, CORE, Allahabad, participated in the hearing through
video conferencing from NIC Allahabad.
Page 1 of 8
CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654959
ORDER
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI Application dated 21.01.2019 seeking information as under:
"Sub: Application regarding copy of Diversion of Railway Supply Materials by Railway Authorities from our Store Situated at Manwal Railway Station, District Udhamur and State Jammu &Kashmir to other projects of Indian Railway.
Kindly provide us the copy of Diversion of Railway Supply Materials by Railway Authorities from our Store Situated at Manwal Railway Station, District Udhamur and State Jammu & Kashmir to other RE Projects of Indian Railway."
Having not received any information from the Respondent, 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 non- receipt of information from the Respondent. Complainant requested the Commission to suitable penalty be imposed on Public Information Officer for not responding to RTI application and also requested the Commission to provide the information sought in the instant RTI Application.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.
Shri Mohammad Kasim, Dy. Chief Electrical Engineer, Ambala Cantt., representing CPIO, CORE, Allahabad, submitted that they have obtained the online ID for the RTI portal in month of March, 2019 and after some time, they have received the instant RTI Application in the month of July, 2019 from CPIO, Page 2 of 8 CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654959 CORE, Allahabad and since the information sought by the Complainant pertains to Electrification department of Moradabad division, they have provided adequate reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 04.11.2019 after obtaining the same from the concerned Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer, Railway Electrification, Moradabad, vide letter dated 30.10.2019. The contents of letter dated 04.11.2019 are as under:
'The information asked vide your letters under reference above, it is intimated that the relevant documents are not presently available in this office. So the required documents could not be provided at this stage' 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 Commission has been apprised as under.Page 3 of 8
CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654959 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 CPIO, CORE, Allahabad, has taken nearly 6 months to forward the present RTI Application to the concerned CPIO. The Commission views this adversely and expresses severe displeasure against the concerned CPIO, CORE, Allahabad, for not adhering to the provisions of the RTI Act and admonishes them for the same.
The Commission also observes that the PIO, Ambala Cantt., after receiving the instant RTI Application in the month of July, 2019, has sought information from the concerned CPIO, Moradabad, vide letter dated 18.10.2019, i.e., nearly after 3 months. Therefore, the Commission strictly admonishes the conduct of the then CPIO, Ambala Cantt., for not providing any reply to the Appellant within the stipulated time-frame as mandated in the RTI Act. The Commission sternly cautions the Respondent public authority that in future, they shall ensure that replies to the RTI Applications shall be provided within the mandated time-frame as specified in the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission further observes that the concerned CPIO, Moradabad, vide letter dated 30.10.2019, has provided the following reply:Page 4 of 8
CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654959 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the denial of information is not arbitrary but with a cogent reasoning, which is squarely covered by a similar rationale relied upon by a 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 n 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.
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 Page 5 of 8 CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654959 party through an RTI proceedings when the prosecution before a Trial Court is already extant."
Keeping in view of the totality of circumstances discussed above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the denial of information by the CPIO. Moreover, the Complainant has pressed for information from the Respondent in the instant case. In this regard, 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 6 of 8
CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654959
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 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 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 7 of 8 CIC/MORLY/C/2019/654959 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 Central Organisation Railway Electrification, 1, Nawab Yusuf Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad- 211 001(UP)
3. Shri Satish Mandaokar Page 8 of 8