Central Information Commission
Mr. Ram Chandra Sahu vs South Eastern Railway on 12 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000525/3201
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000525
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ram Chandra Sahu,
License of Plot No. RL-11 at TOG,
Market, S.E. Rly., Kharagpur,
Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Kumar,
A.D.R.M. & PIO, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur, RTI application filed on : 01/10/2008 PIO replied : 21/10/2008 First appeal filed on : 10/11/2008 First Appellate Authority order not replied.
Second Appeal filed on : 09/02/2009 The Appellant had asked following information for S. No. Information sought. The PIO replied.
1. When the allotment made in the year 1976 as As per RTI Act, 2005 per Master Plan for the benefit of the Rly. information beyond 20 employees as well as the benefit of the Public years in not for various traders. What the terms and furnishable. condition? Whether one time Agreement with the license under the Article 14, 16, 19 (I g) and 300 (A) or periodical Agreement is bond? As per Engineering code, Para 1024, 1008 and 1013. Please clarify the same as per law applicable.
2. Is there any Railway Board Circular or order As per available office regarding Non- execution/break of agreement/ records no such Rly.
stay order in general order in general for Bd's Circular exists. renewal of Ty. License agreement, if the court However, before case is pendency kindly clarifies the same as dealing of such cases per law? legal & competent authority's opinion to be obtained.
3. If the Rly. Administration has failed to Based on survey report execute/Renewal of license Agreement for cases of original more than twenty years, since 1995 to till date, licensees proposed for who will be the responsible for the act of renewal of licensee & negligence? The Rly. Administration or the execution of license, Please clarify? agreements wherein Railway plot no. RL-11 also exists.
4. As per Indian easement license Act, 1882, Since your license Chapter-V Section-47 (l), the land of easement against Rly. No. RL-11 and license Act, wherein it is stipulated that, already expired long sectin-47 I also repeated while clarifying in back, hence licensee section 47 (l) and 47 (2) and clause (9) and does not have nay right (11). This is also supported as per Indian over the land until and registration Act 1877 (3 of 1877) Indian unless it is renewed. limitation Act of 1908 under section 23. The However renewal of dominant uses i.e. the S.E. Rly. Authority the licenses of Railway loosing the time of right of easement. Also land not connected the according to sec. 38 unless the condition Railway working can stipulated in Para 34 are fulfilled the easement be done at GM's level cannot be put into operation as per land of with finance easement Act, 1882 by the dominant owner. concurrence, which are Therefore the Railway forfeits the title of under process. dominant owner. Also your attention is drawn to Article-14, 21, 19 (l) (g) (ii) (l) of constitution of India. Being a bonafied license of the Railway Administration. So that the Railway Administration failed to maintain the policy of dominant owner and forfeits the title of rights and so that the licensee became the land lord as per title right, is there is any rights of the Railway Administration to issue the notice or demand for license fee? Please clarify as per law?
5. Any other particular that may be in-connection No other particulars at to the issue in question. this moment.
The First Appellate Authority ordered. Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Absent Respondent : Absent Queries 3,4 and 5 of the RTI application do not seek information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the RTI act. Query 2 has been answered. However in response to query 1 the PIO has erred in stating information beyond 20 years is not to be furnished under RTI act. The position is contrary to this. After 20 years only three of the ten exemption clauses of the RTI act are applicable. Thus if information is available it has to given, and the Act broadens the disclosable information by allowing only three of the ten exemptions to be applicable after twenty years.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
Information on query 1 will be provided by the PIO to the appellant before 30 May 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 12 May 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)