Central Information Commission
Sonu Pal vs Ministry Of Railways on 17 August, 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/CC/C/2016/000057-AB
In the matter of:
Sonu Pal,
Vill-Hidayatpur Choharwala,
Thana-Afjalgarh,
District-Bijnore ...Appellant
Vs.
PIO,
Railway Claims Tribunal,
Mahendru Ghat,
Patna-800004
&
PIO
Railway Claims Tribunal,
13/15, Mall Road,
Delhi-110054
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 29.07.2015
CPIO reply : Not on record
First Appeal : 13.10.2015
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 21.12.2015
Date of hearing : 11.08.2017
The case was inadvertently registered as a complaint by the Central Registry of this
Commission. Henceforth, the case would be treated as appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act.
1
Facts:
The appellant vide his RTI application dated 29.07.2015 sought the registered number of his case filed by him regarding death of his pregnant wife and son on 28.05.2014 in a train accident, date of registration of the case and its present status. The CPIO's reply or the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. The appellant filed second appeal before this Commission on 21.12.2015.
Grounds for second appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : PIO, Shri Sinha, OS(Patna)
PIO, Ms. Jyoti, Addl.Registrar(Delhi)
During the hearing the respondent PIO(Patna) submitted that they had not sent any reply till date and regretted for this lapse.
The appellant was not present to plead his case.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that proper reply was not provided. A more comprehensive reply should have been provided to the appellant. For the delay part, a simple warning is issued to the then respondent CPIO.
The then respondent CPIO is issued a simple warning that full and final 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.2
Be that as it may, since no reply has so far been provided to the appellant, the respondent CPIO, Gorakhpur 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 e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 30 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, CPIO/PIO, may 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 3