Central Information Commission
Chetan Khandelwal vs West Central Railway on 3 December, 2021
CIC/WECRL/A/2019/658149
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/WECRL/A/2019/658149
In the matter of:
Chetan Khandelwal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/ Divisional Commercial Manager,
Western Railway,
Divisional Office Ratlam, MP
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 01.11.2019
CPIO replied on : 06.11.2019
First Appeal filed on : 08.11.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 25.11.2019
Second Appeal received on : 27.11.2019
Date of Hearing : 02.12.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Chetan Khandelwal, participated in the hearing through audio
conferencing upon being contacted on his telephone.
Respondent: Shri Manoj Verma, ACM, participated in the hearing through audio
conferencing upon being contacted on his telephone.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/WECRL/A/2019/658149
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed RTI Application dated 01.11.2019 seeking information as under:
"Subject matter of information Regarding - (i) Information Regarding Train passenger boarding details.
My family traveled dates on 11.05.2019 from Pune Indore Express, 22943, Coach BE1 PNR 8317349104 Person traveled Reema Gupta, Sumit, Gunjan Gupta I need a boarding details of my family and if possible so provide trick print attested copy."
The Public Information Officer & Divisional Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Ratlam vide letter dated 06.11.2019, informed to the Appellant as under:
"It is informed that the information sought under RTI 2005 by you, pertains to third party and as per item no. (iii) of the Railway Board circular no. 34/19 (enclosed), third party consent is required which is not available with your request/application. Hence the required information may not be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.11.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.11.2019, informed as under:
Page 2 of 6CIC/WECRL/A/2019/658149 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.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he has not received the requisite information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He further asserted that working chart should be provided to him. Upon being queried by the Commission to establish larger public interest while seeking third party information, the Appellant could not provide a cogent reply.
The Respondent submitted that they have provided adequate reply qua the instant RTI Application to the Appellant. He further apprised the Commission that working chart is different from PNR as it contains details of other passengers also and such third party information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Amit Kumar Shahani, CPIO & DCM, vide letter dated 23.11.2021 and the same has been marked to the Appellant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Page 3 of 6CIC/WECRL/A/2019/658149 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 information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party 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.
...
...
Page 4 of 6CIC/WECRL/A/2019/658149
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:
"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 stance of the Respondent public authority and accordingly 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: 02.12.2021 Page 5 of 6 CIC/WECRL/A/2019/658149 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) / ADRM Western Railway, DRM Office Do batti, Ratlam, MP
2. The Central Public Information Officer / Divisional Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Divisional Office Ratlam, MP
3. Mr. Chetan Khandelwal Page 6 of 6