के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/SORLY/A/2024/105637 A Ramakrishnan .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Southern Railway, HQ Office, 4th Floor, Annexe Building, Park Town, Chennai – 600003 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date of Decision : 28.07.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 30.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 06.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 02.12.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 05.01.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.02.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“I respectfully request your assistance in knowing a information regarding an ex employee Mr. C.M. Viswesvaran who had been working as Assistant commercial manager in Chennai southern railways till 2001, I request you to provide the reason for his resignation or dismissal from the concerned department.

I look forward for your positive response.

Fees Paid as per section 4 of Right To Information (Regulation Fee Cost)

Rules 2005 along with this letter.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.11.2023 stating as under:

“It is advised that the information cannot be disclosed under Section 8(i)(j) of RTI Act 2005, and also the information sought pertains to third party having no larger public interest.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.12.2023.

The FAA vide its order dated 05.01.2024, held as under:

“The information sought in Original Application dated 11.10.2023 pertains to third party as specified in Section 8(i) (e), 8(i) (j) and Section

11 of RTI Act 2005.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri C. Anjani Kumar, APO & APIO present through Video-

conference.

5. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.

6. The Respondent submitted that they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

7. The Commission also noted that proof of having served a copy of his Second Appeal on the Respondent has not been uploaded by the Appellant while filing the same before the Commission. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information as per his RTI application. On the other hand, the PIO in his response has categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of a third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not disclosed any larger public interest for seeking third party information.

9. The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the CPIO that the information sought by the Appellant relates to the personal information of a third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j)

of the RTI Act.

10. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section

8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:

“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Infor