Central Information Commission
Mranil Kumarverma vs Ministry Of Railways on 12 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Complaint No.:CIC/VS/C/2014/900138/BJ
Complainant : Mr. Anil Kumar Verma
3/344, Nirankari Colony,
Delhi 110009.
Respondent (1) : CPIO & Dy. CMM(P)
Northern Railways,
Headquarters, Baroda House,
RTI Cell, New Delhi 110001.
Respondent (2) : CPIO/Store
Northern Railways,
Store, Headquarters, Baroda House,
RTI Cell, New Delhi 110001.
Date of Hearing: 12/05/2016
Date of Decision: 12/05/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 31.10.2013
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of filing the First appeal 11.12.2013
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of filing complaint before the Commission 05.02.2014
O R D E R
FACTS:
The complainant sought information regarding a written test held on 26.06.2014. The complainant is seeking information on the action taken on his application and list of total marks obtained by the all candidates.
CPIO's reply and FAA's order is not on record.
HEARING:
Page 1 of 3Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Anil Kumar Verma (M:9873100372);
Respondent: Mr. J. K. Agrawal, CMM (M:9717630756); Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Gupta, Dy.CMM (M:9717630764) and Mr. Satish Sharma, US (M:9717637728);
The complainant stated that he had appeared in a departmental promotional examination conducted by the Railway Administration and the information sought in his RTI application is related to the same. The thrust of his complaint is basically on lack of equality and discrimination between the two candidates who had appeared for the same exam at the same time and in the same building. In the other matter it was alleged that other candidate was shown the evaluated answersheet, whereas, he was denied of the same.
The complainant further stated that the information on the marks obtained by him was provided to him vide a letter dated 09/05/2016 which was received by him on 11/05/2016.
On being questioned for the delay in resolving the query, the respondent explained that owing to confusions within the public authority regarding identifying the competent authority to deal with such matters, this issue remained unresolved. It was explained by the representatives of the respondents that these matters should best be dealt with CPIO (Personnel) who is the custodian of the information in these matters. It was further requested that any further query should be marked to CPIO (Personnel) instead of CMM/SalescumAppellate Authority (Stores) for above reasons.
Since, the complainant desires to receive information the Commission is treating the complaint as a second appeal upon his request. The complainant referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others reported in 2011 (8) SCC 497, as also the appeal no. CIC/SG/A/2009/001069/OP Dated 12/05/2009 decided by CIC in similar matters.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the parties, the Commission directs the respondent to provide the sought for information to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. With respect to the delay in resolving the matter, the Commission cautions the respondent to be careful in replying to RTI matters within the specified time limits upholding and respecting the spirit of the law.
The matter stands closed.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Page 2 of 3 Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3