Central Information Commission
Susheel Kumar Rajput vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 31 January, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NRALF/A/2022/610067-UM
Mr. SUSHIL KUMAR RAJPUT,
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
The CPIO/ Nodal Officer (RTI Cell)
O/o The Divisional Railway Manager,
NORTHERN RAILWAY, FIROZPUR DIVISION,
FIROZPUR, PUNJAB-152001
.... प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.01.2023
Date of Decision : 31.01.2023
Date of RTI application 16.01.2022
CPIO's response 28.01.2022
Date of the First Appeal 02.02.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 09.02.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
The CPIO vide letter dated 28.01.2022, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 09.02.2022, furnished a reply to the appellant and dispose of the Appeal. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.Page 1 of 2
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant's representative Shri Kulwinder attended the hearing through AC.
Respondent: The respondent Shri Yoginder Kumar Tyagi, Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer attended the hearing through AC.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that information was wrongly denied to him by the CPIO. The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent further stated that the information sought pertains to a third party and hence, it was denied to the appellant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission observes that no notice under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act was served on the third party concerned. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to follow the procedure for providing the third party information as laid down under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act by seeking the opinion of the third party concerned and thereafter take a decision regarding disclosure of information. The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 31.01.2023 Page 2 of 2