Central Information Commission
Biswanath Das vs South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 27 September, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SERLK/A/2022/657071 -UM
Mr. BISWANATH DAS
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o. RAILWAYS, (CPIO PERS HQ) &CPO(IR)/SER,
O/o. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTER, 11,
GARDEN REACH ROAD, KOLKATA, W. B. -700043
..... प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.09.2023
Date of Decision : 26.09.2023
Date of RTI application 22.08.2022
CPIO's response 25.08.2022
Date of the First Appeal 01.09.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 17.10.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information.
The PIO vide letter dated 23.08.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.The FAA vide order dated 17.10.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 1 of 2Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present through AC Mr. Jivkar Representative Respondent: MrKaushik Bhattacharya Chairman RRC Present through AC The Representative of the Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that improper, incomplete and misleading reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. He stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hide the information. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish complete and satisfactory information.
The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide letter dated 25.08.2022, a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. Further, the sought information does not fall in purview of the RTI Act, 2005, he claimed. Further he informed that the Hon'ble SCDRC Cuttak has already said that no such records are available. He stated that the status of the case has already been furnished to the appellant and any sort of clarification is not in the purview of RTI Act, 2005.
DECISION:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by the parties and perusal of records, directs the CPIO to re-examine and provide an updated and correct revised reply to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. Further for the redressal of his grievance, if any, the Appellant may approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत)
(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598
द्वदनांक / Date: 26.09.2023
Page 2 of 2