Central Information Commission
Sandeep Mehta vs Northern Railway on 15 September, 2017
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
लब बि डंग (पो टऑ फसकेपास)
Club Building (Near Post Office)
ओ डजेनयूकपस, नई!द ल -110067
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/AB/A/2016/001789-AB
In the matter of:
Sandeep Mehta ...Appellant
VS
DPG & CPIO,
RTI Cell, Room No-507, 5th floor,
Railway Board, New Delhi-110001
&
PIO/DGM(Law),
Northern Railway, Headquarter,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 17.04.2016
CPIO reply : Not on record
First Appeal : 01.06.2016
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 21.07.2016
Date of hearing : 25.08.2017
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 17.04.2016 levelled obnoxious charges against railway officers and a lady staff nurse. He sought copy of the file notings on his representations dated 29.01.2016 and 13.11.2015 as well as he also sought certified copies of file notings and action taken report on the representation dated 30.05.2012 addressed to the General Manager, Northern Railway and information regarding background of doctors in Moradabad and about doctors who are doing private practice in the same RTI was also sought. 1 Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : PIO, Dr. Rajbir Singh, Additional Medical
Suptdt.
PIO, Shri Naresh Kumar, SPO
The RTI application is dated 17.04.2016 which was addressed to CPIO & DD(PG), Railway Board. The CPIO, Railway Board transferred it u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act on 21.4.16 to PIO, Dy. GM(Law), Northern Railway HQ., Baroda House, Shri Vikas Sinha. However, from the record it is apparent that the nodal authority in the headquarter of the NR did not transfer the RTI application to the concerned division i.e. Moradabad as it is clear from the subject matter that the issue pertained to Moradabad division of the Northern Railway.
During the hearing the respondent PIO(SPO) submitted that first reply was provided on 24.08.2017 to the appellant. The information provided was, however, delayed by 14 months.
From the perusal of record, it was seen that on point no. (b), the reply was severely deficient as the concerned public authority in the Northern Railway HQ., Shri Vikas Sinha should have taken assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act and should have provide the relevant information to the appellant within the 2 stipulated time as mentioned in the RTI Act which was not done in the present case.
The then respondent CPIO, Shri Vikas Sinha is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should be provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said RTI application.
The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against the respondent PIO.
The Commission notes that severely deficient information was provided by the CPIO concerned to the appellant. The appellant was desirous of action taken on his three representations the dates of which have already been mentioned in the facts of the case. The information sought was certified copies of note sheet or any other information in connection with the processing of the representation submitted to the railways. The reply by the CPIO/PIO should have contained the certified true copies of the documents in the form of note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc. while furnishing reply to the above dated RTI application. The CPIO also should have either transferred the portion to CPIO, Moradabad u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act or could have taken assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the CPIO concerned holding the above stated information as asked for in the said RTI application. However, this was not done as the reply was not only severely delayed but severely deficient in terms of the information sought. 3
The respondent CPIO is accordingly directed to furnish parawise reply along with certified copies of documents, if any as sought for in the said RTI application in the form of note sheet, letter, correspondence, e- mail etc. 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 both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 4