A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Personnel allegedly gave wrong information to FM in the reply to parliamentary question - Respondent: A speculative request - CIC: Desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed

Central Empowered Committee: Documents pertaining to particular application filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records - CIC: Appropriate response has been provided; Explain the absence during hearing

Refusal by Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) to provide information related to the appointment of Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, accused of heinous crimes against women, as Executive Director in Public Sector Banks - CIC: Denail u/s 8(1)(j) is justified

What does the term “Relevant Trades” in eligibility criteria mean? - CIC: Requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or through FAQs; Advisory issued u/s 25(5) to disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” & to create a FAQ section on website

Respondent: Complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police for necessary action; Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government - CIC: PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held

CIC: Though the reply given by the PIO, Brach Office was appropriate as the file was not available with them, the fact remains that the file was available with the Corporate Office - CIC: Collect the information u/s 5(4) and provide to the appellant

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

Reasons for seeking certified copies is not inconsistent with the provisions of RTI Act

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

CIC: Since the Appellant had also sought adjudication of his dispute using the RTI, the reply is upheld - Scope of RTI Act extends only to disclosure of information as defined u/s 2(f) and not in redressal of grievances or resolving inter se disputes

3 Jun, 2024

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10-07-2022 seeking the following information:

“1- Please give Information regarding action taken by Hon'ble Chairman of Railway Board in reference of my representation of dated- 14/3/2022, send by Rd. Ad. on dated- 14/3/2022. (Subject- Pay fixation since- 01/8/2003)

2- Please give Information regarding action taken by Hon'ble Chairman of Railway Board in reference of my representation of dated- 25/3/2022, send by Rd. Ad. On dated-02/4/2022. (Subject- Harassment by DRM (E)- BVP of SC. Employee since 28/7/1994).

3- Please give Information regarding action taken by Hon'ble Chairman of Railway Board in reference of my representation of dated- 02/6/2021, send by Rd Ad. (Sub.- UNJUSTICE IN THE SELECTION OF THE GROUP' 'B' post of AOM (REGULAR 70%) IN THE YEAR- 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2013-14.).

4- Please give Information, regarding action taken by Hon'ble Chairman of Railway Board in reference my representation of dated- 16/9/2021 (Reminder of my Representation of dated- 02/6/2020) send by Rd. Ad. on dated-18/9/2021.

5- Please give Information in reference of my representation of dated- 20/6/2022 (Subject- Request for taking proper action in reference of my representations of dated- 18/10/2018, 12/3/2019 and 21/10/2019, send by Rd. Ad.

6- Please give one Xerox copy of "the reply" given by The General Manager (P), Western Railway, Mumbai, in reference of Dy. Director, Estt. (GP)- III Railway Board's letter No. E(GP)2018/2/2-Misc. of dated-02/01/2019.

7- Please give one Xerox copy of "the reply" given by "The General Manager (P), Western Railway, Mumbai, in reference of Dy. Director, Estt. (GP)- III Railway Board's letter No. E(GP)2019/2/2- Misc. of dated-11/4/2019.

8- Please give one Xerox copy of "the reply" given by The General Manager (P), Western Railway- Mumbai, in reference of Dy Director Estt. (GP)- III Railway Board's letter No. E(GP)2014/2/7 Misc. of dated-14/8/2014.

9- Please give one Xerox copy of the letter issued by General Manager Mumbai in ref. of Director Estt.(GP) of Railway Board's letter No. E (GP) 99/2/22 of dated- 29/3/2010.

10- Please give Information with documentary proof regarding action taken by Hon'ble Chairman. Railway Board in reference of my representation of dated - 10/01/2020. (Subject- Exploration, Harassment and Humiliation to Scheduled Castes Employee, by misusing RS(D & A) Rules 1968.

11- Please give item wise Remarks in reference of my representation of dated-21/10/2019 with documentary proof.

12- Please give Rule Number of (D&A) Rules 1968 under which I was taken up Two times (dated- 16/9/2016 and 28/2/2017) for the same Negligence.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30-09-2022 stating as under:

“Kindly refer to your RTI application dated 12.01.2022, which was received in this office and registered vide ID No MORLY/R/P/22/01067 dated 16.07.2022. As per status given by CRB branch, the said petition dated 14.03.2022 was received and forwarded to PED/IR and further forwarded to DE(G). However, petitions dated 02.06.2021, 16.09.2021, & 25.03.2022 were not received in CRB Office. Status Report is enclosed for reference. (Annex.1)”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10-09-2022. The FAA order is not on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Shri CP Singh, attended the hearing.

Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Saluja, CPIO & DDE, Shri Dipak Kumar Biswas, Nodal Officer/RTI Cell, Ms. Harsha Sikri Arora, Railway board and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Section Officer, attended the hearing.

The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. While explaining the brief background of the matter, the Appellant apprised the bench that he has not been given proper retirement benefit.

The Respondent submitted that the Appellant is in habit of filing several representations to different offices and thereafter seeking status of the averred representations. In the instant case, their office has obtained the relevant information from the concerned custodian of the information and provided the same to the Appellant vide letter dated 30.09.2022. He added that the grievance of the Appellant behind filing these representations is that the Appellant has not been given promotion in group B as there are four parameters for assessment i.e., written, medical, assessment of APAR and viva voce and since the Appellant could not qualify the viva, he was not considered for the promotion and vide letter dated 20.06.2022, their office has informed the Appellant that no dues regarding seniority, fixation, promotion payment etc. is pending.

A copy of written submission has been received from Shri DK Biswas, Deputy Director (PG) & Nodal APIO/RTI Cell, vide letter dated 14.03.2024, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record.

A copy of written submission has been received from Shri Amar Singh Sagar, PIO & Sr. DPO, vide letter dated 15.03.2024, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record.

A copy of written submission has been received from Ms. Pallavi Goswami, CPIO & DE (GC), Railway Board, vide letter dated 15.03.2024, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record.

Decision:

Perusal of the records of the case reveals that the appeal at hand arises out of the Appellant’s grievance which cannot be adjudicated within the framework of the RTI Act. This aspect stands settled by the following legal precedents:

a) decision dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors., relevant excerpt whereof is as follows:

“.. 6. ... the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished. Moreover, there is a categorical finding of the CIC, of the appellants misusing the RTI Act, as is also evident from the plethora of RTI applications filed by the appellants. In view of the said factual findings of the CIC and which is not interfered by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.…”

b) It is pertinent to mention the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 of 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 had held as under:

“While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority.”

The settled legal position about the jurisdiction, scope and ambit of the RTI Act is abundantly clear from the aforementioned decisions. Since the Appellant had also sought adjudication of his dispute using the RTI mechanism, in the light of the aforementioned decisions, the reply sent by the Respondents is upheld wherein the information as permissible under the RTI Act, had been duly furnished by the Respondent. It is worthwhile to recall that the scope of the RTI Act extends only to disclosure of information as defined under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act and not in redressal of grievances or resolving inter se disputes. Hence, the Commission is of the opinion that there remains no cause of action for intervention in the instant case under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: C P Singh v. Railway Board, CIC/MORLY/A/2023/106230; Date of Decision : 22-03-2024

CIC: Since the Appellant had also sought adjudication of his dispute using the RTI, the reply is upheld - Scope of RTI Act extends only to disclosure of information as defined u/s 2(f) and not in redressal of grievances or resolving inter se disputes

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.