Central Information Commission
Nikhil Khurana vs Railway Board on 27 September, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/RAILB/A/2017/607489
In the matter of:
Nikhil Khurana
...Appellant
VS
DPG and CPIO,RTI Cell, Room No 507,
5th floor, Railway Board, New Delhi-01
&
The CPIO-127 and Director/Works-I, Railway
Board, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001
&
DGM(Law)/CPIO, Northern Railway, Headquarters
Office, Baroda House, New Delhi
&
Nodal CPIO, North Western Railway, Headquarters
Office, D-3, Mother Teresa Colony, Siddharth Nagar,
Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302017
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 24.10.2016
CPIO reply : 27.01.2017
First Appeal : Not Mentioned
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 27.11.2017
Date of hearing : 20.12.2017, 26.04.2018, 29.06.2018, 06.09.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 24.10.2016 sought information on twenty-five points; list of new passenger/express trains started by Indian railways in the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, list of passengers, express trains extended, frequency increased by Indian railway in the year 2014-15 till Page 1 of 9 the date of the RTI application, list of new passenger/express trains introduced by North Western Railway in the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, list of new trains which are added in time table of 2016-17, list of express trains other than Rajdhani and Shatabdi whose bogies are converted into LHB coaches till the date of RTI application, since the introduction of LHB coaches in the Indian Railways year wise; track utilisation of DLI-RE track and reason(s) why trains belonging to the NWR and NR are terminated at Rewari station and not extended to Delhi despite Delhi being the capital of India; list of works going at the Delhi Cantt railway station, plan for the future development of Delhi Cantt railway station, reasons why no direct train is running on Hanumangarh- Sadulpur-Rewari-Delhi route and the reason why proposal for the same is not yet sent to the railway board by the NWR JP HQ, reason(s) with copy of proposal as to why no direct train runs on Haridwar-Bhiwani-Hisar route and why any proposal for the same has not been sent to the Railway Board by the NWR JP HQ; copy of proposal for extension of 54809/10 JU-RE to Delhi, copy of proposal for merging 22421/22 with 12479/80, copy of proposal for extension of Brahmaputra mail up to Bikaner, list of trains which are terminated at Rewari and list of trains with lay over periods at Rewari junction station, copy of proposal for providing stoppage of the train 19609/10 at Delhi Cantt station, copy of proposal for starting a direct train between Bhiwani and Delhi via Rewari, details about Tanakpur-Bageshwar rail link, Rishikesh-Karnaprayag rail link, updated status on the new rail line to be constructed between Muzaffarnagar and Roorkee, copy of the proposal for extension of trains 19609/10 and 12413/14 to Udaipur, copy of proposal for stoppage to be given to the train no 19269/15716 at Barabanki Rail station, list of washing pit and train maintenance facilities at Jaipur and Ajmer station, details of proposal for doubling for the electrified route rail line Delhi-Ahmedabad via Jaipur with copies of tenders received, when will Indian railways be able to provide unreserved tickets all over India by single app, website, list of gauge conversions going on in the NWR with target date(s) of completion and list of Page 2 of 9 passengers trains which can be extended from Rewari to Delhi and vice-versa by Northern railway and North western railway. The CPIO replied on 27.01.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of Sec 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 27.11.2017. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Interim Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Kuldeep Singh,
Section Officer cum APIO
Railway Board
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply on point no. 22 vide their letter dated 27.01.2017 and on point nos. 1 and 2 on 30.12.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order was passed on 02.02.2017. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed. Since the same was not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
The appellant submitted that he received replies on point nos. 6, 10, 13, 21 and 24 of the said RTI application but did not have the copies during the hearing. He further submitted that on point nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 25 of the said RTI application, he did not receive any reply and also that he did not receive the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order. He further submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply provided on point nos. 1 and 2 of the above stated RTI application.
Page 3 of 9On perusal of the case record, it is seen that the following officers/departments should furnish requisite replies on different points as follows:
1. The respondent CPIO(land and amenities), Railway Board on point no. 7;
2. On point nos. 8, 9, CPIO/PIO, Nodal RTI Cell, Jaipur;
3. On point no. 14, DGM(Law), Northern Railway, Baroda House;
4. On point nos.17 and 18, Director(Works), Railway Board; and
5. On point nos. 20 and 25 PIO, nodal, North Western Railway, Jaipur and PIO, DGM (Law), hqrs., Baroda House, New Delhi.
The case is adjourned.
The registry of this bench is directed to fix another date for hearing in the month of January and to ensure that the above mentioned respondent CPIOs are present invariably on the next date of hearing.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Interim Order : 26.04.2018
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Mohit Kumar,
Director Works-I cum PIO
Shri Harjot Singh Sandhu,
Shri Manvendra Singh cum PIO
Shri V.K. Pathak,
Deputy General Manager(Law),
Northern Railway
During the hearing, the appellant submitted that incomplete reply was provided on point no. 22 of the said RTI application. On point no. 24, the appellant submitted that the required information was not received from the respondent authority. However, the information sought for was not disclosable being exempted u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act as it contained various information pertaining to the contractor i.e. address, income tax return, balance sheet etc., disclosure of which would compromise/damage their position/reputation in the Page 4 of 9 market. On point nos. 8 & 9, the appellant had submitted that the requisite information on these points was received on 25.04.2018 from the respondent PIO, Jaipur and the appellant was satisfied with the same. On point no. 7 of the above stated RTI application, the appellant was satisfied with the reply received from the respondent concerned. In regard to point nos. 14, 20 and 25 of the said RTI application, the appellant received the requisite reply and was satisfied with the same. The appellant however submitted that he did not receive any reply on point nos. 1-5 of the said RTI application. The respondent PIO, Jaipur submitted during the hearing that they had provided the requisite reply on point no. 3 on 17.03.2017. Since the same was not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
The appellant submitted that he had not received any reply from the respondent authority concerned on point no. 3 of the above stated RTI application.
The respondent PIO, PIO, Shri Manvender Singh is directed to resend a copy of the reply dated 17.03.2017 on point no. 3 of the said RTI application within 07 days of the receipt of this order to the appellant by speed post keeping the postal tracking number as record. The despatch details are to be submitted to the Commission within 07 more days thereafter.
The appellant submitted that he had not received any reply on point nos. 1, 2,4 and 5 of the stated application.
The Director(Coaching), Railway Board is directed to provide the sought for information on point no. 4 within 45 days by utilising the provision u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case in regard to some of the points contained in the stated application, the respondent CPIO, Director(Coaching-II), Railway Board is directed to provide point wise reply on point nos. 1, 2,4 and 5 of the stated RTI application, complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record Page 5 of 9 in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 45 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned 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.
The case is adjourned The registry of this bench is directed to fix another date for hearing and to ensure that the respondent CPIO( Director Coaching), Railway Board is present invariably on the next date of hearing.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Final Order : 29.06.2018
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Ved Prakash,
CPIO(Director Coaching),
Railway Board
During the hearing, the appellant submitted that he received the reply after 20 months (after three hearings) on 15.06.2018 and right now this information is of no use to him. He further submitted that still in third hearing that CPIO, Director (Coaching) is not present. He further submitted that he wanted that penalty to be imposed plus no appellant should be harassed in future while getting the information.
During the hearing, the respondent confirmed that Director (coaching) is present.
The Commission observed that railway's is the holder of the information and after 20 months the information was provided which is deplorable. About 250 advisories were passed to Chairman, railway board but nothing had happened.
Page 6 of 9In view of the above a Show cause notice is issued to the then Director (Coaching II) , Railway Board to explain why penalty u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him for providing delayed reply.
The explanation(s) to the above stated Show Cause notice is/are to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO/PIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name, address, mobile no., present place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent CPIO should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
It was noted that the appellant was satisfied with the provided information. Hence, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order (Based on submissions) : 06.09.2018 A Show cause notice was issued to the then Director (Coaching II) , Railway Board to explain why penalty u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him for providing delayed reply.
Explanation from Shri M.S Bhatia, Executive Director/Coaching
(i) That he was working as Director/Coaching -II and Nodal/CPIO of Coaching dte./Railway Board during May, 2016 to 03 August, 2017.
(ii) Shri Nikhil Khurana vide RTI application ID No. 60303 dt. 24.10.2016 had sought information on 25 points/items. Replies on item nos. 1 & 2 of the stated RTI application pertaining to the Coaching Dte., were furnished to the applicant vide their office letter no. MORLY/R/2016/60303 dt.
Page 7 of 930.12.2016 (not on 27.01.2017 as mentioned in the order sheet) and as such, it was wrong on the part of the applicant to suggest/submit that response/reply was not provided to him (copy enclosed).
(iii) In fact, it was only after the receipt of reply to the said RTI application that the applicant filed 1st appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The 1st appeal was received in the Coaching Dte. on 02.02.2017 and after due consideration by the First Appeal Authority, the first appeal was disposed of by the then FAA on 20.02.2017 upholding the reply given by the then CPIO (copy enclosed).
(iv) This fact, as highlighted in the para (ii) of the submission was admitted by the appellant also during the first hearing of 2nd appeal held on 20.12.2017 but still he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent. However, during the second hearing of 2nd appeal held on 26.04.2018 before the CIC, the appellant falsely represented before the CIC that he had not received any reply. It would be appreciated that in terms of the provision of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is expected to furnish timely reply based on the information available with him. However, going beyond the scope of the Act, the applicant insisted on receiving a reply as per his expectation in the instant case. Thus, the appellant in fact had misled the Hon'ble CIC by concealing certain facts in this case.
(v) The appellant again tried to mislead the Commission by misrepresenting fact that the information was provided 20 months after the RTI Application was filed before the concerned CPIO and as such the reply had lost its relevance. However, kind attention is invited to the fact that it was only upon the directions of the CIC during the second hearing of 2nd appeal held on 26.04.2018 that a consolidated revised reply concerning all items pertaining to the Coaching Dte. of the Railway Board was furnished to the applicant/appellant vide their office letter no. MORLY/R/2016/60303 dt. 08.06.2018 with a copy duly endorsed to the Page 8 of 9 Dy. Registrar/CIC. As such, it was the revised information (and not the initial reply) which was furnished, on 08.06.2018, which was in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble CIC.
Moreover, the submission of the appellant that the information had lost its relevance is also not correct because the information sought pertained to a particular period and data was static in nature and as such the said data is equally relevant as it pertained to the time of making initial RTI application before the concerned CPIO/PIO.
Decision:
Based on the above submission, the Commission considered the reply dated 30.12.2016 and noted that the said reply was in respect of point nos. 1 and 2 of the said RTI application. However, the fact remains that the rest of the points raised in the RTI application under consideration in the present case were not properly replied to vide their reply dated 08.06.2018. Therefore, strict warning is issued to the concerned officers to refrain from committing such lapses in future.
Copies of this order are be sent to the CRB for information and appropriate action against the officers responsible for such lapse.
With the above warning, the showcause proceeding is closed. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharya (अ मताभ भ!टाचाय) Information Commissioner ( सच ू ना आय# ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Ajay Kumar Talapatra Dy. Registrar 011- 26182594 / [email protected] अजय कु मार तलपा , उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date Page 9 of 9