CIC: There is delay in responding to the RTI application and therefore, the PIO is hereby issued a warning for future to be careful and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act - CIC: The appellant is not entitled to seek own documents using RTI
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Western Railway, Rajkot seeking information as follows:-
“1. Copy of the letter dated 14.06.2017 addressed to the DRM, Rajkot.
2. Whether her widow daughter’s name has been included in the PPO including a copy of the PPO thereof.
3. Copy of the revised PPO as per the VIIth Pay Commission.”
2. The CPIO responded on 08-02-2018 & 11-03-2020. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 08-03-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 12-04-2018. Thereafter, she filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
3. The appellant, Mrs. Pushpalata H. Sharma did not attend the hearing. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Bharti, DPO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent informed the Commission that they have already furnished the sought for information with reference to the RTI application as available in their records to the appellant vide their letter dated 11.03.2020. Regarding the delay, they submitted that it took time in collecting the information from the personnel department as the original letter was not received by them. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.
5. This Commission observes that due information, as available in records, has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 11.03.2020 along with the rule position on the subject regarding inclusion of name in the PPO. However, there is delay in responding to the RTI application and therefore, the CPIO is hereby issued a warning for future to be careful and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
6. Further, this Commission observes that the appellant is not entitled to seek own documents in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 26781 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013 titled as The Central Information Commission v. B. Bharathi dated 17.09.2014, wherein, it was observed as follows:
“24. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect.”
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Citation: Pushpalata H. Sharma v. M/o. Railways in Second Appeal No. CIC/WRAIL/A/2018/145080, Date 19-03-2020