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

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

Information about ACP proposal - CIC is unhappy with the contradictory statements made by the Respondent which shows sheer disregard towards their own employees - CIC: Take relevant details from appellant so that requisite information should be provided

Appellant sought copies of noting w.r.t disciplinary proceedings pending against him - In a similar matter, the CIC order granting relief to the appellant has been stayed by Delhi High Court - CIC: no relief can be ordered in the matter at this stage

Percentage of attendance of student enrolled in PH.D. as per UGC - PIO: Information related to the personal information of other students, therefore the same was denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial upheld

CIC: Complainant is arguing on his grievance regarding 3rd MACP and challenging the correctness of the information provided; PIO provided information in the spirit of RTI Act - CIC: Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the Act

Alleging an unethical practices of taking money for passing PG clinical exam candidates, appellant sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner - CIC: Being a third party service matter, information exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

A candidate sought to know the number of attempts made for the examinations conducted by UPSC - PIO: The number of attempts of the candidates is checked at the time of final stage of selection only; Information was not available in a complied form

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

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

RTI applicant can seek compensation if a loss or detriment is suffered due to delay

Delhi HC orders removal of news articles and social media posts against a businessman on X

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

Merely because one of the several points of the RTI application qualify for exemption u/s 8 of the Act, PIO cannot deny information on the remaining points on the conjecture that the said exemption shall extend to the all the major points of application

23 Oct, 2020

O R D E R

Information Sought:

The appellant filed an RTI application on 11.01.2018 and sought information in respect of three persons i.e. Shri R S Meena, Station Master at KRCC, Margao in March / April 2017; RPF Inspector on duty at KRC, Margao in March / April 2017; and RPF Inspector on duty at KRC, Margao in October 2015 to February 2016, including, inter-alia;

4.1Date of appointment / deputation into the KRC/RPF.

4.2Date of age related to his retirement from KRC/RPF.

4.3Photo as per application form on form of recruitment / deputation.

4.4Photo as per application form on service book (old, new and updated service books).

4.5Educational Qualifications at the time of joining the KRC/RPF .

4.6Educational Qualifications acquired after joining the KRC/RPF.

4.7Training received from the date of Joining the KRC/RPF.

4.8Positions, Ranks, Transfers, Deputation, Stations and Departments served from the date of entry into the KRC/RPF.

4.9Copies of Mark sheets of the l0th,12th standard and the Graduate and Post Graduate level.

4.10 Language of education (in terms of teaching and written examinations) of the 10th,12th standard and the Graduate and Post Graduate level Certified Copies of the CR/ACR.

4.11 Certified Copies of the censures, penalties and strictures from date of appointment.

4.12 Certified Copies of the lst Page of the Service Book of all of the above stated person.

4.13 Certified Copies of the lst Page of the Service Book of all of the above stated persons (Old, New and Updated Service Books).

4.14 Details of all complaints made against the above stated persons w.r.t date of complaint and name of complainant.

Alongwith abovementioned information, the appellant sought inspection of service record of these said persons. The CPIO, vide letter dated 08.02.2018 gave point wise reply to the RTI application. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dt. 07.04.2018. FAA, vide order dt. 03.05.2018, upheld the CPIO’s reply.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The Appellant relied on his written submission and reiterated that the denial of information by the CPIO has led to denial of exercise of human rights and fundamental rights of the appellant. The appellant contended that the date of posting and transfer of a public servant is not a third party personal information rather it requires a suo moto disclosure by the public authority under the RTI Act. He further contended that the data regarding posting, transfer, promotion, etc. of RPF staff always reflected in public domain through railway website. The Complainant further contended that the educational qualifications, service book, training done by the IR staff and photos of the said staff are not the third party personal information, as the said information is created by the KRC (Kokan Railway Corporation). Moreover, the PIO did not send notice u/s. 11 of the Act to the concerned person to obtain his consent. The appellant submitted that he stayed in Margao for 4 weeks to request the FAA to conduct a personal hearing. However, despite repeated telephonic calls, the FAA passed the impugned order without giving the opportunity of personal hearing. The Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the sought information.

A written submission dt. 09.08.2020, filed by the appellant, was taken on record. Per contra, the respondent submitted that point wise reply was given by the CPIO vide letter dt. 08.02.2018. In response to point no. 4.1-4.7 of RTI application, CPIO stated that there is no employee named Shri R S Meena posted as Station Master / superintendent of KRCL at Madgaon station. In this regard, CPIO further informed that RPF inspector at Margao in March/April, 2017 and in Oct.-Feb, 2016 on duty were Shri Ranjit Marandi and Shri A F Khan respectively. In addition, the CPIO furnished the date of appointment/deputation of the said two persons into KRC/RPF, however, denied the information sought on rest of the subpoints u/s. 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 Act. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant involves third party information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties which is exempted from disclosure 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.

Decision:

The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the then CPIO, Shri B G Ghatge, furnished the reply to the appellant on 08.02.2018, without application of mind. Merely because one of the several points of the RTI application qualify for exemption under Section 8 of the Act, the CPIO cannot deny information on the remaining points on the conjecture that the said exemption shall extend to the all the major points of RTI application. It is regretful to observe how the CPIOs are tempering with the spirit of the RTI Act just to get rid of their statutory duty of replying to the RT applications. This merely indicates lack of seriousness and a lackadaisical approach towards matters relating to RTI. The Commission takes a very serious view of this lapse and counsels the then CPIO, Shri B G Ghatge, to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur.

The Commission, further, directs the respondent to provide a fresh categorical reply alongwith available information as per the RTI Act, after severing information which is held by the respondent in a fiduciary capacity or relates to personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; or (j) of the RTI Act.The aforesaid reply be furnished to the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties. The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.

Amita Pandove

Information Commissioner

Citation: Samir Sardana v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. In Second Appeal No. CIC/KRAIL/A/2018/173416, Date of order: 01.09.2020

Merely because one of the several points of the RTI application qualify for exemption u/s 8 of the Act, PIO cannot deny information on the remaining points on the conjecture that the said exemption shall extend to the all the major points of application

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.