Central Information Commission
Syamdas D vs Southern Railway on 8 November, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SORLY/A/2023/639603
Syamdas D .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office,
Safety Department, Park Town,
Chennai - 600003 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.11.2024
Date of Decision : 08.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 14.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 14.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 28.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.08.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 06.06.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. How many enquiry commissions were formed for investigating into Perumon train accident happened on 8th July 1988
2. Please provide a copy of the reports of all enquiry commissions formed to investigate on this accident"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.06.2023 stating as under:
Page 1 of 4"In response to your RTI application dated 06.06.2023, it is informed that information sought by you pertains to Safety Department and is as follows:
1. One enquiry commission was formed.
2. The information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)
(d) of RTI Act-2005.
This disposes of your RTI application."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 28.06.2023, held as under.
"The inquiry reports are statutory documents and exempted from disclosure as per RTI Act - 2005 under Section '8'(1)(b) & (d). This disposes of your first appeal."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Mohd. Shameen A, Dy. CSO/Mech. & PIO present through Video- Conference.
Written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that information on point No. 2 has not been provided by the Respondent and the same has been wrongly denied by them.
The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letter dated 14.06.2023, point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. During the hearing, the Respondent further apprised the Commission that as per para 116 (1) & (2) of Indian Railways Act, 1989, the enquiry by commissioner of Railway Safety shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purpose of Section 195 and chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and while submitting the report to the Railway, Commissioner of Railway Page 2 of 4 Safety has classified the documents as "CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT - not to be produced or cited as a piece of evidence in a Court of Law", which is stamped in the front page of the report. Hence, the information sought has been expressly forbidden to be published by the deemed court and hence exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (b) of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant appeal was non-furnishing of information by the CPIO on point No. 2 of the RTI application. The Commission observes that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant as per his RTI application vide letter dated 14.06.2023.
The Commission observes that information on point No. 1 of the RTI application has already been provided to the Appellant. On point No. 2 of the RTI application, the Respondent has given a detailed explanation as to why such information cannot be disclosed in public domain. The Commission is in agreement with the response given by the Respondent on point No. 2 of the RTI application.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
No intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 3 of 4 Copy To:
The FAA, Southern Railway, General Manager's Office Safety Department, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)