Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001626
Dated January 28, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Ms.Rekha R.Batle
Name of the Public Authority : Central Railway, Mumbai
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.16.3.09 with the PIO, Central Railway Mumbai
requesting for Xerox copy of letters/representations/attendance register/absentee
register for the period Aug.2007 till Sept.2008. Dr.Satish Srivastava, PIO (Accounts)
replied on 24.3.09 enclosing the copy of letter dt.25.9.08, copy of attendance register
of Aug.2007, copy of absentee register/late attendance register of 22-24 Aug.2007
while denying the information with regard to the representation of Mrs.G.R.Naidu
u/s8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal
dt.18.4.09 stating that the information provided against point (i) was not certified and
reiterated her request for information against point (ii). Shri Vinay Mittal, Appellate
Authority replied on 23.5.09 stating that the PIO has provided all the information
except the copy of representation of Mrs.G.R.Naidu since the disclosure of said
information will be violative of a fiduciary relationship as well as the confidence and
trust between the employee and employer and is protected u/s 8(1)(e) of RTI Act.
Further, her plea for providing certified true copy of certain documents is not
sustainable since it is not obligatory on the part of a public authority to provide
certified true copy of any document sought under the RTI Act, 2005. Being aggrieved
with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.8.7.09 before CIC. In her appeal
she submitted that her husband Shri R.g.Batle had submitted representations
dt.8.10.07 and 24.4.08 to his Head of Zonal Railway through his controlling officer as
the railway administration had committed a very serious mistake because of which the
Office had started harassing her husband. As a part of the harassment, the Railways
had deliberately disclosed the said representations to Mrs. Naidu which according to
the Appellant is highly objectionable. She wanted to know why if Mrs. Naidu can be
given her husband’s representations although it is highly objectionable, she can’t be
given Mrs.Naidu’s representation.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
on January 28, 2010 through video conference.
3. Ms.Apala Singh, PIO, Shri N.G.Shete, Shri Motwani, APIO HQ representing Appellate
Authority and Shri Rajesh Kumar, CI representing the Public Authority and the
Appellant were present at Mumbai NIC for the hearing..
Decision
4. The Commission on review of the second appeal observed that the Appellant herself
has admitted that disclosure of information in the case of her spouse to Mrs. Naidu is
highly objectionable as was is being held by the Public Authority in a fiduciary
relationship. In this case too the Commission would like to point out that the same
consideration is being upheld by the Commission and accordingly the Commission
denies disclosure of Mrs Naidu’s representation to the Appellant, under Section 8(1)(e)
of the RTI Act as the information has been furnished to the Public Authority in
confidence and is being held in a fiduciary relationship by the Public Authority. The
Commission accordingly disposes off the appeal.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Ms.Rekha R.Batle
D/64, 8 Block
Near Hambardikar Bakery
Bhusawal 425 201
2. The PIO
Central Railway
FA&CAO’s Office
3rd Floor, New Admn. Building
CST
Mumbai 400 001
3. The Appellate Authority
Central Railway
FA&CAO’s Office
3rd Floor, New Admn. Building
CST
Mumbai 400 001
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC
