Central Information Commission
Krishna Kumar vs East Central Railway (Hajipur) on 9 July, 2020
CIC/ECRHJ/A/2018/153452
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ECRHJ/A/2018/153452
In the matter of:
Krishna Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The Central Public Information
Officer (CPIO) cum Asstt.
Personnel officer,
East Central Railway,
Samastipur Division, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Samastipur
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21.04.2018 FA : 02.06.2018 SA : 30.08.2018
CPIO: 27.07.2018 &01.11.2018 FAO : 06.07.2018 Hearing : 08.07.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over the phone
Respondent: Shri M K Shukla, ADEN, East Central Railway, Samastipur
Division, Samastipur,heard over the phone
Page 1 of 7
CIC/ECRHJ/A/2018/153452
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 21.04.2018 seeking information on four points, including, inter alia;
1. In North-East direction of Malgodam Chowk Samastipur Khagaria Railway Line to Jitwarpur Railway Colony, Samastipur Zone, how much railway land is located in which account nos. of which Thana no. and which khasra number.
2. When was the demarcation and measurement done by the Railway in r/o account & Khasra nos. mentioned in point no. 1. Provide a copy of field books of all measurements.
3. To provide the copy of all documents related to cadastral of relevant record, papers of revised survey, survey record, record of reserved plots in question in your record room etc., as mentioned at point nos. 1 & 2. And other related information.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 10.04.2018, returned the initial RTI application dated 15.03.2018 of the appellant on account of non- submission of postalstamp order of Rs. 10/- in favour of F.A. & CAO, E.C.R. Payable at Samastipur but to the Divisonal Rail Manager, Samastipur. The appellant, thus, filed a fresh (instant) RTI application dated 21.04.2018 along with the correct IPO. Having not received any response from the CPIO in respect of the instant RTI application, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.06.2018. FAA, vide order dated 06.07.2018, directed the CPIO to provide sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant.Page 2 of 7
CIC/ECRHJ/A/2018/153452 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground that no information has been furnished by the respondent. He requested to the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information free of cost and also impose penalty on the concerned officer for delay in furnishing the information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent till date. He further submitted that since the instant matter pertains to a scam in respect of Railway land, the respondent has, with malafide intent, withheld the requisite information.He further alleged that the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005, in the Respondent Public Authority is far from satisfactory and that they were not adhering to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, desired strict action to be initiated against the erring officials.
The respondent submitted that the appellant's RTI application was received in their office on 06.07.2018 in response to which the appellant, vide letter dated 27.07.2018, was informed that the due information can be collected from District Land Acquisition Officer. He further submitted that after the filing of second appeal, a letter dated 01.11.2018 was once furnished to the appellant reiterating their earlier stand.
The appellant contested that the above stated letters dated 27.07.2018 and 01.11.2018 were not received by him. He further submitted that if the information pertained to District Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent should have transferred the RTI application to the concerned department.Page 3 of 7
CIC/ECRHJ/A/2018/153452 The written submissions dated 06.07.2020 filed by the respondent were taken on record.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, where an applicationis made to a public authority but the subject matter of the RTI application pertains to another public authority, the CPIO of the public authority receiving the RTI application has to transfer the same to the public authority concerned. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 20.03.2018 in case of Common Causevs. High Court of Allahabad & Anr (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 194 of 2012) has observed as under:
"8. As regards the objection that under Section 6(3) of the Act, the public authority has to transfer the application to another public authority if information is not available, the said provision should also normally be complied with except where the public authority dealing with the application is not aware as to which other authority will be the appropriate authority."
Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of MujiburRehman vs. Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007) dated 28 April, 2009 held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities"
whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their Page 4 of 7 CIC/ECRHJ/A/2018/153452 lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers.It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
However, in the present matter, the respondent instead of transferring the RTI application merely stated that the information can be collected from District Land Acquisition Officer. The CPIO is, therefore, counselled to be more careful in future, so that such lapses do not recur. The Commission further directs the CPIO to transfer the RTI application, along with a copy of the Commission's decision, to the concerned department.
The Commission also observes that as per the respondent a reply in response to the RTI application was provided to the appellant. However, as per the appellant, no reply in response to the RTI application was received. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to resend a copy of the CPIO's replies dated 27.07.2018 and 01.11.2018, along with the proof of dispatch with respect to the dispatch made earlier including the Registered Post tracking number, to the appellant.
The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 5 of 7CIC/ECRHJ/A/2018/153452 Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
अिमता पांडव)
Amita Pandove (अिमता व
Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु )
दनांक / Date: 08.07.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26105027
Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)
Cum Sr. Divisional Railway Manager (COOR.),
East Central Railway,
Samastipur Division,
Samastipur-848101
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Cum Asstt. Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Samastipur Division, Samastipur-848101 Page 6 of 7 CIC/ECRHJ/A/2018/153452
3. Shri Krishna Kumar Page 7 of 7