क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/RAILB/A/2016/304093
In the matter of:
Saidur Rahman
...Appellant
VS
DPG and CPIO, RTI Cell, Room No 507,
5th floor, Railway Board, New Delhi-01
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 07.03.2016
CPIO reply : 12.04.2016
First Appeal : 29.04.2016
FAA Order : 23.06.2016
Second Appeal : 29.08.2016
Date of hearing : 29.12.2017
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 07.03.2016 sought information on four points: copy of order no. E(REP)I-83 AE1/RRC dated 02.05.85/01.06.85, if the said rule was amended, copy of the revised rule, copy of the railway board letter no. E(REP)I-83 AE1/RRC dated 28.05.1985/ 01.06.85 in which report of railway reforms committee was mentioned, copy of the report and if the report was cancelled copy of the order for the cancellation of the same. The CPIO replied on 12.04.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 29.04.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 23.06.2016 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information, the appellant filed 1 second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 29.08.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri R.P.Meena,
Joint Director cum PIO,
Railway Board
During the hearing, the respondent PIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 12.04.2016 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 23.06.2016 in which it was stated that the relevant records are not available on point nos. 1 and 2 of the said RTI application. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent and referred to a letter dated 10.08.2016 of the Dy CPO, Shri Raman Kumar Sharma of Northern Railway in which it was mentioned that the rule a copy of which was sought for in the said RTI application was still in existence.
The PIO submitted to the Commission that the records are more than 20 years old. Hence, copies of these records are not required to be provided to the appellant under the provision of Sec 8(3) of the RTI Act.
At the outset, it is considered necessary to examine the applicability of the relevant Section of the RTI Act.
The Sec 8(3) of the RTI Act reads as follows:
(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question 2 arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.
The Central Information Commission in the matter of Mr. S.P. Siddarthan vs Govt. Girls Higher Secondary vide decision dated 24th November, 2008 in Appeal No.3115/ICPB/2008 held as under:
"DECISION:
2. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in this connection. The PIO has wrongly interpreted the provisions of section 8(3) of the Act, while denying this information. The provision of section 8(3) cannot be unilaterally applied in case if the information is pertaining to the period beyond 20 years. Section 8(3) has to be read along with section 8(1) and it has been very clearly stated where it should be applied. As far as preservation of record is concerned, it is purely the prerogative of the concerned Department. In case if the information is available even beyond 20 years it should be provided. In case if it is not stipulated in their rules to preserve the record for a period of 20 years, there is no obligation on the part of the public authority to preserve the records for 20 years. This should be kept in mind while interpreting section 8(3) of RTI Act. As far as this application is concerned the appellant is requesting for the transfer certificate in favour of his wife who happened to be the student of the school from 1975 to 1985. I have also noted the averments made by the First AA in the comments. Still I direct the PIO to go through the records of the school once again and in case if this particular is available, he should provide the transfer certificate within one month from the date of receipt of this direction. In case if the records are not available if the records have been destroyed the PIO has to file an affidavit to that effect before the Commission. On these lines, the appeal is disposed of." The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Board Of Sec.Education & ... vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors vide decision dated 9th August, 2011, in Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011[Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009] held as under:
"30. On behalf of the respondents/examinees, it was contended that having regard to sub-section (3) of section 8 of RTI Act, there is an 3 implied duty on the part of every public authority to maintain the information for a minimum period of twenty years and make it available whenever an application was made in that behalf. This contention is based on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of section 8(3). The said sub-section nowhere provides that records or information have to be maintained for a period of twenty years. The period for which any particular records or information has to be maintained would depend upon the relevant statutory rule or regulation of the public authority relating to the preservation of records. Section 8(3) provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matters which has taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6, shall be provided to any person making a request. This means that where any information required to be maintained and preserved for a period beyond twenty years under the rules of the public authority, is exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of section 8(1) of RTI Act, then, notwithstanding such exemption, access to such information shall have to be provided by disclosure thereof, after a period of twenty years except where they relate to information falling under clauses (a), (c) and (i) of section 8(1). In other words, section 8(3) provides that any protection against disclosure that may be available, under clauses (b), (d) to (h) and (j) of section 8(1) will cease to be available after twenty years in regard to records which are required to be preserved for more than twenty years. Where any record or information is required to be destroyed under the rules and regulations of a public authority prior to twenty years, section 8(3) will not prevent destruction in accordance with the Rules. Section 8(3) of RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all `information' to be preserved and maintained for twenty years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority."
On interpreting the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, whether independently or/and in juxtaposition, it is clear that the interpretation by the present CPIO is not proper. The Sec 8(3) of the RTI Act was incorrectly interpreted by the present CPIO. The CPIO cannot deny the information u/s 8(3) of the RTI Act on the pretext that the information sought is more than 20 years old. It is clear from the above judicial dicta that nowhere in the provision of Sec 4 8(3) of the RTI Act, it is mentioned that information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which had taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 of the Act, shall not be provided. Moreover, the records if available, must be provided or if the relevant records are weeded out, the CPIO should give details of the record retention schedule under which such weeding out had taken place.
In view of the above, the present respondent CPIO is directed to submit an affidavit on point nos. 1 and 2 of the above stated RTI application indicating the date of destruction / weeding out of the said records along with a copy of the order of the competent authority authorising such destruction / weeding out within one month of the receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within the same time period.
OR In case the records are available, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought on point nos. 1, 1.1,2 and 2.1 (legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 5
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/RAILB/A/2016/304093
In the matter of:
Saidur Rahman
...Appellant
VS
DPG and CPIO, RTI Cell, Room No 507,
5th floor, Railway Board, New Delhi-01
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 07.03.2016
CPIO reply : 12.04.2016
First Appeal : 29.04.2016
FAA Order : 23.06.2016
Second Appeal : 29.08.2016
Date of hearing : 29.12.2017
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 07.03.2016 sought information on four points: copy of order no. E(REP)I-83 AE1/RRC dated 02.05.85/01.06.85, if the said rule was amended, copy of the revised rule, copy of the railway board letter no. E(REP)I-83 AE1/RRC dated 28.05.1985/ 01.06.85 in which report of railway reforms committee was mentioned, copy of the report and if the report was cancelled copy of the order for the cancellation of the same. The CPIO replied on 12.04.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 29.04.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 23.06.2016 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information, the appellant filed 1 second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 29.08.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri R.P.Meena,
Joint Director cum PIO,
Railway Board
During the hearing, the respondent PIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 12.04.2016 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 23.06.2016 in which it was stated that the relevant records are not available on point nos. 1 and 2 of the said RTI application. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent and referred to a letter dated 10.08.2016 of the Dy CPO, Shri Raman Kumar Sharma of Northern Railway in which it was mentioned that the rule a copy of which was sought for in the said RTI application was still in existence.
The PIO submitted to the Commission that the records are more than 20 years old. Hence, copies of these records are not required to be provided to the appellant under the provision of Sec 8(3) of the RTI Act.
At the outset, it is considered necessary to examine the applicability of the relevant Section of the RTI Act.
The Sec 8(3) of the RTI Act reads as follows:
(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question 2 arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.
The Central Information Commission in the matter of Mr. S.P. Siddarthan vs Govt. Girls Higher Secondary vide decision dated 24th November, 2008 in Appeal No.3115/ICPB/2008 held as under:
"DECISION:
2. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in this connection. The PIO has wrongly interpreted the provisions of section 8(3) of the Act, while denying this information. The provision of section 8(3) cannot be unilaterally applied in case if the information is pertaining to the period beyond 20 years. Section 8(3) has to be read along with section 8(1) and it has been very clearly stated where it should be applied. As far as preservation of record is concerned, it is purely the prerogative of the concerned Department. In case if the information is available even beyond 20 years it should be provided. In case if it is not stipulated in their rules to preserve the record for a period of 20 years, there is no obligation on the part of the public authority to preserve the records for 20 years. This should be kept in mind while interpreting section 8(3) of RTI Act. As far as this application is concerned the appellant is requesting for the transfer certificate in favour of his wife who happened to be the student of the school from 1975 to 1985. I have also noted the averments made by the First AA in the comments. Still I direct the PIO to go through the records of the school once again and in case if this particular is available, he should provide the transfer certificate within one month from the date of receipt of this direction. In case if the records are not available if the records have been destroyed the PIO has to file an affidavit to that effect before the Commission. On these lines, the appeal is disposed of." The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Board Of Sec.Education & ... vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors vide decision dated 9th August, 2011, in Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011[Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009] held as under:
"30. On behalf of the respondents/examinees, it was contended that having regard to sub-section (3) of section 8 of RTI Act, there is an 3 implied duty on the part of every public authority to maintain the information for a minimum period of twenty years and make it available whenever an application was made in that behalf. This contention is based on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of section 8(3). The said sub-section nowhere provides that records or information have to be maintained for a period of twenty years. The period for which any particular records or information has to be maintained would depend upon the relevant statutory rule or regulation of the public authority relating to the preservation of records. Section 8(3) provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matters which has taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6, shall be provided to any person making a request. This means that where any information required to be maintained and preserved for a period beyond twenty years under the rules of the public authority, is exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of section 8(1) of RTI Act, then, notwithstanding such exemption, access to such information shall have to be provided by disclosure thereof, after a period of twenty years except where they relate to information falling under clauses (a), (c) and (i) of section 8(1). In other words, section 8(3) provides that any protection against disclosure that may be available, under clauses (b), (d) to (h) and (j) of section 8(1) will cease to be available after twenty years in regard to records which are required to be preserved for more than twenty years. Where any record or information is required to be destroyed under the rules and regulations of a public authority prior to twenty years, section 8(3) will not prevent destruction in accordance with the Rules. Section 8(3) of RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all `information' to be preserved and maintained for twenty years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority."
On interpreting the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, whether independently or/and in juxtaposition, it is clear that the interpretation by the present CPIO is not proper. The Sec 8(3) of the RTI Act was incorrectly interpreted by the present CPIO. The CPIO cannot deny the information u/s 8(3) of the RTI Act on the pretext that the information sought is more than 20 years old. It is clear from the above judicial dicta that nowhere in the provision of Sec 4 8(3) of the RTI Act, it is mentioned that information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which had taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 of the Act, shall not be provided. Moreover, the records if available, must be provided or if the relevant records are weeded out, the CPIO should give details of the record retention schedule under which such weeding out had taken place.
In view of the above, the present respondent CPIO is directed to submit an affidavit on point nos. 1 and 2 of the above stated RTI application indicating the date of destruction / weeding out of the said records along with a copy of the order of the competent authority authorising such destruction / weeding out within one month of the receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within the same time period.
OR In case the records are available, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought on point nos. 1, 1.1,2 and 2.1 (legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 5
Short Summary The case concerns an appeal against the denial of information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The appellant sought information regarding certain railway rules and reports. The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the Public Information Officer (PIO) incorrectly interpreted Section 8(3) of the RTI Act and directed the PIO to either provide the information or submit an affidavit detailing the destruction of the records.
Facts The appellant, Saidur Rahman, filed an RTI application seeking copies of specific railway board orders and reports. The PIO provided a reply, but the appellant was not satisfied. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO's decision, stating that the relevant records were unavailable. Rahman then filed a second appeal with the CIC. The PIO argued that the records were over 20 years old, thus exempting them from disclosure under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act.
Issues
Petitioner's Arguments The appellant argued that the information sought was not provided and referred to a letter indicating that the rule in question was still in existence. He contended that the PIO's denial was unjustified.
Respondent's Arguments The respondent (PIO) argued that the requested information was not available and, alternatively, that the records were over 20 years old, making them exempt from disclosure under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act.
Court's Reasoning The CIC relied on previous decisions, including Mr. S.P. Siddarthan vs Govt. Girls Higher Secondary and Central Board Of Sec.Education & ... vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, to clarify the interpretation of Section 8(3) of the RTI Act. The CIC emphasized that Section 8(3) cannot be unilaterally applied to deny information simply because it pertains to a period beyond 20 years. The CIC stated that if the records are available, they must be provided. If the records have been destroyed, the PIO must provide details of the record retention schedule under which the destruction occurred. The CIC found that the PIO incorrectly interpreted Section 8(3) of the RTI Act.
Conclusion The CIC allowed the appeal and directed the respondent PIO to submit an affidavit indicating the date of destruction/weeding out of the records, along with a copy of the order authorizing such destruction. Alternatively, if the records were available, the PIO was directed to provide complete point-wise replies to the appellant within 15 days, free of charge.
Get instant answers specific to this case