Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2285
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Central Information Commission, J
Arockiamary M.Colandhai – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Western Railway – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/WRAIL/A/2019/106914
For the Appellant: Smt. Arockiamary M. Colandhai, Shri Emmanuel
For the Respondents: Shri Dharmendra Kumar
A public authority must adhere to the defined obligations under the RTI Act, ensuring applicants receive requested information unless legally exempt.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f) and 2(j) - The Appellant requested for a copy of the daily report book relating to EMU Carshed work, which the Respondent denied, claiming it was not controlled information - The Commission found the denial unfounded, noting proper procedures under the RTI Act were not followed. (Paras 15-18)
(B) Compliance Obligations - CPIOs must adhere to RTI provisions and ensure satisfactory information delivery to applicants. The actions of the Respondent indicated neglect of responsibilities mandated by the RTI Act. (Paras 20-22)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant sought information from the Respondent regarding a daily report for June 2011, which had been denied on grounds that it was not controlled documentation.
Findings of Court:
The Commission criticized the Respondent for failure to provide information, labeling the conduct as dismissive of RTI Act’s provisions. The Respondent was directed to furnish the requested record within a specific timeframe.
Issues: The primary issues involved the definition of 'controlled copy' under the RTI Act and adherence to the requisite record retention protocols.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission asserted that the information sought by the Appellant was legitimate and that the Respondent’s justification for denial lacked substantive basis, meriting compliance with RTI mandates.
Result: The Commission directed the Respondent to provide the requested information and issued a show-cause notice to the CPIO for improper handling of the matter.
O R D E R
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 30.07.2018 seeking information as under:
“PA-PIS Section, EMU Carshed, MCT. which is under Sr. DEE(RS), EMU Carshed, MCT. must be maintaining a daily report book pertaining to the work and failure attended in day to day schedule of working with daily incoming of EMU rakes in Carshed and the work been carried out on them. Provide me a copy of the same daily report failure/attending book as maintained by PA-PIS Section, EMU Carshed, MCT for the month of June 2011, duly attested by the concern officer.”
The CPIO vide letter dated 10.08.2018 enclosed a letter endorsed by Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Rolling Stock) Mumbai Central dated 07.08.2018 wherein the Appellant was informed that information sought does not come under the definition of information as per section 2(f) & 2(j) of the RTI Act. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.08.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.11.2018, directed the CPIO & Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Power), Mumbai Central to re-examine the case in detail and provide the desired information as asked by the Appellant and if available in material form; in accordance with the provision of RTI Act and as per the provision of record retention rule, within 15 days therefrom.
In compliance with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the CPIO vide letter dated 12.11.2018 enclosed a letter endorsed by Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Rolling Stock) Mumbai Central dated 09.11.2018 wherein the Appellant was informed as under:
“… the reply sent via this office not of even no. dated 07.08.2018 stands good, i.e. “daily report book is not a controlled copy and hence as per the section 2(f) & 2(j) of RTI Act, 2005 is not information, hence cannot be provided to the Appellant”.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. She requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that they are not satisfied with Respondent’s reply. They requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that the relevant daily report book is not a controlled copy and hence, the same does not constitute as information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. At the instance of the Commission as to whether he still reiterates his stance, he replied in affirmative. He further submitted that the relevant daily report book is maintained by the Supervisor, which contains personal data. At the instance of the Commission, he explained that the relevant daily report book is not a controlled copy, which means the Supervisor uses the said daily report book for his own purpose and in the event if the Administration Department issues the same; only then such daily report book will be considered as a controlled copy. He furthermore submitted that the Supervisor is the in-charge of the concerned section and in order to maintain co-ordination/monitoring, maintains the said daily report book as a pocket diary. Upon queried by the Commission as to whether the said daily report book is available or not, he submitted that as per the record retention schedule, the said daily report book has been destroyed. Upon further queried by the Commission as to what is record retention period for the aforesaid daily report book, he apprised the Commission that he is not aware of it as the averred record retention schedule is only for ‘local practices’.
The Appellant interjected to state that they have received a copy of the daily report book from the same Respondent public authority for the period 2013 to 2019 onwards, which has been stamped and signed by the concerned Electrical Engineer. He further stated that he has no
