Appellant wanted to know whether a particular rail journey was performed, the berth & coach number allotted; cancellation details if any, etc. - FAA: journey particulars are third party information exempt under section 8(1)(j) - CIC: denial upheld
12 Oct, 2014ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 21.08.2012 seeking information pertaining to the status of a certain railway ticket.
2. The CPIO responded on 03.09.2012 and denied the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The appellant filed his first appeal on 28.09.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 25.10.2012. The appellant filed a second appeal on 08.02.2013 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent referred to the RTI application of 21.08.2012 and stated that the appellant was seeking information on the status of a certain ticket mentioned in the RTI application which was booked for travel from Bangalore to New Delhi in Karnataka Sampark Kranti Express on 13.03.2012. The respondent stated that the appellant wanted to know whether the journey was performed, what was the berth and coach number allotted to the passengers, and if the ticket was cancelled certified copy to be provided confirming the date and time when the above stated ticket was cancelled along with the location of the Railway reservation counter where the request for cancellation details were sent.
5. The respondent stated that the CPIO responded on 03.09.2012 to the appellant and informed that the sought journey particulars are third party information and the concerned party has expressed their unwillingness for disclosure of the information sought, hence information sought attracts exemption under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The FAA also upheld the decision of CPIO on 25.10.2012.
6. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
7. The action taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act.
Decision:
8. The decision taken by the first appellate authority is upheld. Commission's intervention in the matter is not required. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Vijay Gupta v. South Western Railway in Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000666/VS/07910