Central Information Commission
CIC / AD /A/ 2010/ 000087
Dated April 30, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri A.K. Satpathy
Name of the Public Authority : South Eastern Railway, Kolkata
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.07.07.2009 with the PIO, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata seeking a copy
of the letter dated 05.05.2005 written by Mr. Asit Chaturvedi, the then CVO South Eastern Railway to the ED(VT) Railway
Board. The PIO replied on 04.08.2009 enclosing the reply provided by the Senior DGM/SE Railway vide the letter dated
03.08.2009 denying the information as it is confidential in nature and is also exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)
(g). Not satisfied with the reply of the Applicant filed his first Appeal on 24.08.2009 stating that the source of information is
already known to him and that 8(1)(g) cannot apply in this case as a report has been sent by Mr. Asit Chaturvedi to the
Government body not in furtherance of the objectives of the Organization but to defame him. He argued in his Appeal that
the disclosure would serve public interest as it would expose the misuse of power by a Public Authority to satisfy that
personal grudge which is also a form of corruption. According to the Applicant the public interest in disclosure outweighs
the harm to the personal protected interest. The First Appellate Authority replied on 11.11.2009, upholding the decision of
the PIO and also stating that the document is being held by the SDGM in a fiduciary capacity and is exempted under
Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. He also invoked Section 8(1) (g) and since the process of D & A inquiry has not yet been
completed, denied the document also under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act as the confidentiality of the sources of
document still remain alive. Being aggrieved with this reply, the Applicant filed the Appeal before the Commission
on23.11.2009 requesting the Commission to direct the Public Authority to provide the information and also to impose
penalty on the PIO.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter through video conferencing for
9 April, 2010.
3. Shri Debasis Chaudhary, CPIO, Shri B.P. Khare, ADG(M), and Shri Snehasish Bhattacharya, Dy. CVO
represented the Public authority were present at the NIC Studio, Kolkata. The Applicant was also present during the
hearing.
Decision
4. The Appellant furnished the following grounds for appeal to the Commission:
a) The Respondents have been relying on different exemption clauses at different points of
time just to deny him the information.
b) Denial under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005 is no longer tenable since the letter has already been passed on
to higher authorities by the SDGM, with whom, as per the submission of the PIO the letter is available in a
fiduciary capacity. When a responsible Government officer authors a document about another in the course of
their duties then the document cannot be held as a private document (as it is not trust reposed upon another
person by a private person) and cannot be exempted from disclosure on the ground that it is confidential. The
present incumbent therefore cannot hold the document passed on by her predecessor in ‘trust’.
c) As for reliance on Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005, the letter is not even remotely connected with law
enforcement activity or to the security of the state and the source of information is already known to him.
5. The Commission noted that in a recent decision dated 30th November, 2009 while deciding the matter of Union
of India vs. Central Information Commission & Shri P.D. Khandelwal, Justice Sanjiv Khanna while discussing the
scope and ambit of “fiduciary relationship” in great details has discussed that “…….Normal, routine or rather
many acts, transactions and duties of a public servant cannot be categorized as fiduciary for the
purpose of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and information available relating to fiduciary relationship.
(The said reasoning may not be applicable to service law jurisprudence, with which we are not
concerned.) ……..” Therefore, in the light of the well settled position of law, it is evident that exemption under
Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005, from disclosure of information does not apply in this case since the said
letter has been written as a part of the normal duty of a Public Servant to another Public Servant and in any event
has been passed on to the higher authorities for action in the Railways Department and hence exists in the public
domain and is definitely not confidential any longer.
6. The contention of the Respondent that disclosure of information would result in establishment of the identity of
the author of the letter is not justifiable as the Appellant is already aware of the author of the letter. However, the
disclosure of the contents of the letter written by the CVO based on which the D& AR proceedings against the
Appellant have been initiated may still endanger the life/physical safety of the concerned officer. Keeping this in
mind the Commission denies disclosure of information under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act 2005. Furthermore,
in view of the submissions of the Respondent, the disclosure of information is likely to impede the process of
D&AR Inquiry proceedings and hence the information cannot be disclosed at this stage under provisions of
Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Judgment in this case was reserved and pronounced in he open Chamber on 30th April 2010.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr.A.K. Satpathy
Sr. DSO, DRM’s Office,
SE.C. Railway
Kingsway, Nagpur440001
2. The PIO
South Eastern Railway
O/o the PIO & CPRO
11, Garden Reach
Kolkata700043
3. The Appellate Authority
South Eastern Railway
O/o the Addl. General Manager
11, Garden Reach
Kolkata700043
4. Officer in charge NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC