In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001222
Date of Hearing : August 2, 2011
Date of Decision : August 2, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Radhey Shyam
Bungalow No. 6, Rail Saurabh
Burn Company
Jabalpur.
Applicant was heard on Audio.
Respondent(s)
Ministry of Railway
Joint Secy (G) & PIOII
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan
New Delhi.
Represented by : Shri S C Krishna, US (Confdl)
Shri Kundan Kumar, Assistant.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001222
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 22.7.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Ministry of Railways,
Railway Board, New Delhi. He sought the following information:
a) Any letter written to Shri U K Singh, the then CCM and presently working as Chief Operations
Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad for his comments on his representation and on adverse
entries recorded by him in his ACR for the year 200809.
b) Reply and comments of Shri U K Singh, COM/NCR on item no. 1.
c) Office notings on file when his representation was put for consideration.
d) Remarks and decision of competent authority who took decision on his representation.
e) Name and designation of the Competent Authority who decided his representation.
2. The PIO replied on 27.1.11 enclosing the reply received from the concerned Directorate who denied
information against all the points under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. According to him the disclosure
was not going to serve any public interest. The Applicant filed his first appeal dated 3.2.11 requesting for
the information once again. The Appellate Authority replied on 1.3.11 stating that ” With reference to the
adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 200809 the decision of the competent authority has already
been conveyed to the applicant. As regards the request of the applicant for copies of letters & notes, it is
stated that these are only a thinking process preceding the final decision which can’t be categorized as
‘information’ defined in the Act. Further, meaning of information has to be read along with section 8(1)(e)
and section11 of the Act that provide for exemption of information available in fiduciary relationship and
protection of information provided by a third party. Since the definition of third party also includes a Public
Authority the officers of the Public Authority who express their views are also entitled to protection as a
“third party”. Moreover, citizens have the right to demand disclosure of information which is in public
interest and relevant. In the instant case what is in public interest and relevant is the decision itself (which
has already been conveyed) and not who expressed what view. As such the disclosure of the
information sought by the applicant is not warranted.” Being aggrieved with this reply the Applicant filed
his second appeal before the Commission reiterating his request for the information.
Decision.
2. The Commission after hearing both sides directs the Respondent to provide the required information
after judicious use of sec 10(1) of the RTI Act to sever any part of the information which is exempt
from disclosure under any of the subclauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The information to be
provided by 5th September 2011.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc
1. Shri Radhey Shyam
Bungalow No. 6, Rail Saurabh
Burn Company
Jabalpur.
2. The Public Information Officer
Ministry of Railway
Joint Secy (G) & PIOII
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of Railway
Secretary & AA II
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
4. Officer in charge, NIC.
.
In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving
(1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant 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/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided