In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000970
Date of Hearing : August 9, 2011
Date of Decision : August 9, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Pradeep M Sonthalia
10, Swadhin Sadan,
C Road, Marine Drive,
Church Gate,
Mumbai 400 020
The Appellant was not present.
Respondents
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, DIG (R&T)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000970
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 11.11.2010, filed with the PIO, DG (RPF), Railway
Board, New Delhi, sought various information [identified in 22 items (a to v)] in respect of service
matter of Shri Anoop Srivastav, Inspector General, RPF. The APIO, Dr. S.N. Pandey, on 30.12.2010,
forwarded a reply dated 27.12.2010 of Under Secretary (Estt.) to the Appellant which answered items
(c) & (n)) of the Applicant’s RTIapplication. The Applicant thereafter filed his 1stappeal with the
Appellate Authority (AA) on 11.11.2010 which apparently had not been replied to by the AA.
However, the Appellant has enclosed a reply dated 18.02.2011 of AA with the present petition which
refers to his another appeal dated 14.02.211. The Appellant, thereafter, filed the present petition
dated 15.03.2011 before the Commission commenting on the reply given by the Respondents.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that they, except the information related to items h & n of
the Appellant’s RTIapplication, have furnished all other information to the Appellant. These two items
were accordingly discussed as given below;
Item h):
3. The Appellant wanted to obtain the information about the vehicle used by the 3rdparty along with its
log book. The Respondents stated that the 3rdparty herein is an Inspector General of Police, who
while discharging his duties needs to visit several people (informers, witnesses) and places, identity
of which is required to be kept secret in order to avoid any hindrance in the process of the law
enforcement–the job of an IGP. They also apprehended that if this information is allowed to be
disclosed the lives of those who are assisting the IGP in the lawenforcementprocess might be
exposed to risk. They, therefore, cited exemption Section 8(1)(g) of the RTIAct.
The Respondents’ reasoning is persuasive. It is, therefore, directed that there shall be no disclosure
with regard to this item.
Item n):
4. The Appellant sought for the annual declaration of the assets of the 3rdparty which the Respondents
have declined to part with citing exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTIAct and stating that the
information belongs to a third party.
Since the information herein belongs to the 3rdparty, it is decided to grant him an opportunity of being
heard under Section 19(4) of the RTIAct before taking any decision in this regard.
5. The matter is accordingly posted for further hearing on 09.09.2011 at 1600hrs to hear the
submissions of the 3rdparty, Shri Anoop Srivastav, Inspector General, RPF, who is directed to ensure
his presence on the said date, failing which the issue shall be decided on the basis of available
records.
6. The PIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to the 3rdparty for him to comply with the above
direction.
7. The Appeal is partly disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Pradeep M Sonthalia
10, Swadhin Sadan,
C Road, Marine Drive,
Church Gate,
Mumbai 400 020
2. The Appellate AuthorityIV &
DG (RPF)
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
3. Public Information OfficerIV &
I G (Admn)
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant
may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTI
application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the
Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the
complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant may indicate, what information has not been provided.