dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
Central Information Commission
Dyc Hkou] utnhd Mkd[kkuk / Club Building, Near Post Office
iqjkuk ts-,u-;w- ifjlj / Old J.N.U. Campus
ubZ fnYyh - 110067 / New Delhi - 110067
*****
27/09/2008 0:00 No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00398
Dated: 17 October 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Supatkar
New Mankapur
Plot No-37
Near Mhada Colony
Nagpur
Name of the Public Authority : South East Central Railway
Background:
Shri Rajesh Supatkar of Nagpur filed and RTI-application with the Public
Information Officer, South East Central Railway, Nagpur, on 12 July 2007 seeking
information on four counts relating to payment of wages and regularization of
Licenced Porters in SEC Railway, Nagpur.
2. The PIO vide his letter dated 24 September 2007 replied to the RTI-application.
Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed an appeal with the first
Appellate Authority on 1 October 2007, who vide his letter dated 16 October 2007
replied to it. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Commission with a Second
Appeal dated Nil, which was registered in the Commission on 24/04/2008.
3. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter
on 16 October 2008.
4. Shri Pradeep Kumar, Sr. DCM & PIO, Shir K.V.A Rao, ADRM & Appellate
Authority and Shri M.K. Singh, Sr. DCM/R, represented the Respondents.
5. The Appellant, Shri Rajesh Supatkar, was present through audio conference.
Decision:
6. The Commission heard both the sides: the Appellant through audio
conference. It noted that the only reason for non-disclosure of the information
asked for by the Appellant was the fact that the case was sub-judice. When asked
how they had taken this ground for non-disclosure, they produced before the
Commission the notings of their Chief Law Assistant (Legal Advisor) according to
which as the case was in the Court, the information could not be supplied under
Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI-Act. Obviously, the Legal Advisor has not only failed to
take into consideration either the spirit or the letter of the RTI-Act but has also
shown ignorance of many of the decisions passed by the Commission earlier in such
cases. Section 8(1)(b) clearly states that only that information need not be
disclosed which has been specifically forbidden by the Courts to be disclosed or the
disclosure of which would constitute contempt of the Court. As such this provision is
not applicable to the present case by any reason or logic.
7. The Commission feels that the performance of the Legal Advisor has to be
reassessed and recommends that the Department does so. In the meantime, the
Commission directs the Respondents to disclose the entire information asked by the
Appellant and also provide him photocopies of any document that he desires free of
cost. This may be done by 14 November 2008.
8. The case is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Rajesh Supatkar, New Mankapur, Plot No-37, Near Mhada Colony, Nagpur,
440030
2. The Public Information Officer, South East Central Railway, Divisional Railway
Manager’s Office, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
3. The Appellate Authority, South East Central Railway, Divisional Railway Manager’s
Office, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC