Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rakesh Kumar Gaur vs Ministry Of Railways on 3 November, 2016

                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
                     Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110067
                              Tel : +91-11-26717355

                                     Complaint No. CIC/VS/C/2015/000008

Complainant:            Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gaur,
                        R/o. 204, 17-C, Sarswati,
                        MHADA Customs Colony,
                        Aadi Shankaracharya Marg,
                        Powai, Mumbai - 400076.

Respondent:             The Central Public Information Officer,
                        Ministry of Railway,
                        Rail Bhawan,
                        1, Raisena Road,
                        New Delhi - 110001.

Date of Hearing:        2.11.2016
Date of Decision:       2.11. 2016

                        ORDER

Facts:

1. The complainant filed RTI Application dated 25.10.2014 seeking information regarding total amount of budgetary provision made for two new rail links, New Delhi to Narora(U.P.) via Bulandshahar (U.P.) and Chola (U.P.) to Bulandshahar, date of completion of the project, total amount spent from the allotted budget on the heads, in the financial year 2012-13, provisions made in the railway budget for the period 2013-14, etc. The response of CPIO is not on record. The complainant filed a complaint dated 8.12.2014 before the Commission requesting for information sought and penalties be imposed on the CPIO as per provisions of RTI Act.
Hearing:
2. Both the parties did not participate in the hearing. The complainant, vide letter dated 24.10.2016 stated that due to his official engagements he is unable to attend the hearing.
3. From perusal of the record it is observed that respondent has not provided any information to the complainant. In view of this, it may be treated as second appeal.
Observation:
4. The CPIO/his representative did not participate in the hearing in spite of Commission's hearing notice. The hearing should be attended by a suitable officer.

Decision:

5. The respondent is directed to provide, within 30 days of this order, information to the complainant in the context of the RTI application.
6. The respondent is directed to show cause, within 30 days of this order, why action should not be taken against the respondent for contravening the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act.
7. The respondent is directed to show cause, within 30 days of this order, why action should not be taken against him for trying to deny information by not attending the hearing.
8. The respondent is directed to be present personally before the Commission on 2.12.2016 at 10.30 A.M. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar