Central Information Commission
Suman Kanwar vs North Western Railway on 27 September, 2021
CIC/NWRLY/A/2019/147398
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NWRLY/A/2019/147398
In the matter of:
Suman Kanwar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
North Western Railway,
Western Railway,
Public information Cell,
DRM Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 07.06.2019
CPIO replied on : 15.07.2019
First Appeal filed on : 31.07.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 29.08.2019
Second Appeal received on : 25.09.2019
Date of Hearing : 01.09.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Smt. Suman Kanwar along with her Advocate Shri Vinod Kumar
Gupta, participated in hearing through video conferencing from NIC Bikaner.
Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh, PIO and Divisional Officer Manager (DMO) along
with Shri Anil Modi, APO and PIO, participated in hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Jodhpur.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/NWRLY/A/2019/147398
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 07.06.2019 seeking information on the following two points:
"(a) Subject matter of information
1) Salary dispersed for the month April 2019 showing the details of amount paid to Shri Abhimanyu Ujjawal s/o Late Shri Karnidan cast Charan Shri Abhnanyu is Guard in Railway and he has got his job or behalf of his late father Shri Karnidan.
2) Other amounts in different heads dispersed to Shri Abhimanyu Ujjawal post guard in the financial year 2018-19.
3) True and attested copy of Form no. 16 for the financial year 2018-19 issued by the department to Shri Abhimanyu Ujjawal Guard.
(b) Department/ office from which information is required:- Drawing Dispersing officer for salary.
(c) Description of information required:
1) Salary certificate for the month of April 2019 & other amounts dispersed to Shri Abhimanyu Ujjawal Guard.
2) Form no.16 for the financial year 2018-19."
Shri Vijay Singh, Asstt. Public Information Officer, North Western Railway, Jodhpur vide letter dated 15.07.2019, enclosed a letter/note given by Divisional Operational Manager, North Western Railway, Jodhpur dated 12.07.2019 wherein denied information u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.08.2019, enclosed a letter/note given by Divisional Operational Manager, North Western Railway, Jodhpur dated 08.08.2019 wherein upheld the CPIO's reply.
Page 2 of 6CIC/NWRLY/A/2019/147398 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that she has not received complete information as sought in the instant RTI Application. Upon queried by the Commission as to whether any dispute is pending adjudication between the Appellant and her estranged husband Shri Abhimanyu Ujjawal, she explained that a matrimonial dispute is pending adjudication before the competent/jurisdictional Family Court and further added that in order to support her pending case, she has sought information in the instant RTI Application to ascertain the salary of her estranged husband.
The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of a third party. He further submitted that the concerned third party was also asked as to whether the information can be divulged or not, the concerned third party has expressed his dissent vide letter dated 05.07.2019, from divulging his personal information to any third party. The Commission orally directed the Respondent to upload the said dissent letter on the link of the registry of this bench.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the concerned party has expressed his dissent from sharing his personal information, the Respondent has denied the information to the Appellant under Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, which Page 3 of 6 CIC/NWRLY/A/2019/147398 is an incorrect Section/Clause to deny the information. The Commission counsels the Respondent that Section 11 of the RTI Act is a procedure followed to seek consent/dissent from the concerned third party and that the denial should be made only according to the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The Commission cautions the Respondent to be careful in future, while handling matters pertaining to the RTI Act.
Be that as it may, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, since the Appellant is contesting the same, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
"16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex-husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in-laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.
...
...
19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:
Page 4 of 6CIC/NWRLY/A/2019/147398 "xxx xxx xxx
53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizen the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency."
Keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio, the Commission upholds the denial of information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act and finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove(अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 27.09.2021 Page 5 of 6 CIC/NWRLY/A/2019/147398 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) /Addl.Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway ,DRM office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
2. The Central Public Information Officer North Western Railway, Public Information Cell, Drm Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
3. Smt. Suman Kanwar Page 6 of 6