Central Information Commission
Mr.Subhash Chandgupta vs North Central Railway on 16 August, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000888
Dated August 16, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Subhash Chand Gupta
Name of the Public Authority : DRM Office
North Central Railway, Allahabad
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.28.10.09 with the PIO, North Central Railway HQ, Allahabad.
He stated the following:
M/s.Vishal Traders was awarded the contract for Deep screening of 1105t.km in SBBBL Section vide contract agreement No.74/w/5578/Bills dt.6.11.93 for Rs.5,39,000/. The above work had to be carried out @ 200 KM per day. But due to short supply of Rail Panels and nonavailability of the departmental cautions, the progress of the work had been reduced to 150m and further to 100m per day. Since the work could not be completed with the extended D.O.C as per the advice of AEN, M/s.Vishal Traders had applied for extension of D.O.C beyond 10.2.94 which was forwarded by PWI to AEN on 15.2.94. In anticipation of extension of D.O.C the work was allowed by AEN and in compliance with it the measurement was recorded by PWI from pages 1316 in the Measurement Book No.2911 duly witnessed by M/s.Vishal Traders. But without issuing the show cause notice, the above contract was rescinded by DEN on 3.5.1994 and for slow progress of work, a penalty of Rs.43,760/ was imposed whereas the progress of the work was slowed down by DEN himself. In this context, the Applicant sought the following information:
i) Reason for not communicating the reply to the representations of M/s.Vishal Traders
ii) Details of the payment made and the penalty recovered from M/s.Vishal Traders under above contract be communicated.
iii) In case the progress of the work had been slowed by the department on administrative grounds under what rules the recovery of the penalty for slow progress of the work had be done.
iv) At the instance of the AEN the work was carried out beyond and with his consent the measurement was recorded in the measurement book by PWI duly verified by Vishal Traders. If the work is carried out by the contractor with the consent of the administration why the payment of the same could not be made by granting post facto extensions.
v) In case the contract of M/s.Vishal Traders has been rescinded by DEN on 3.5.94, why the final settlement has not been done till date to the party even after so many representation.
vi) How much payment is due to the contractor on final settlement.
vii) In how much time will the final settlement of the bill be arranged to the party along with interest on delayed payment.
The PIO replied on 12.11.09 enclosing the reply dt.6.11.09 furnished by Divl. Engineer (Track) who stated that information sought pertains to a very old contract case (16 years old), and that relevant records of this contract are being collected. He, however, provided information against points 1 to 3 and added that reply to points 4 to 7 will be submitted after collecting the information & after scrutiny of the relevant records of the contract. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.16.12.09 with the Appellate Authority. On still not receiving any reply, he filed a second appeal dt.23.4.10 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for August 16, 2010 through video conferencing.
3. Shri K.M.Narain, PIO & Sr.DPO and Shri A.K.Gupta, Deemed PIO represented the Public Authority and were present at NIC Studio, Allahabad.
4. The Appellant was also present at NIC Studio, Allahabad.
Decision
5. During the hearing the Appellant wanted to know why cancellation and cutting of entries had been done in the Measurement Book (MB) and who had done so after the entries were accepted as also the date wise penalty that had been imposed on him in 1994. The Respondents submitted that MB was filled in 1994 and at this stage, it is difficult to find out who had done the cutting of entries since the people responsible for the entry had since expired or retired. He also stated that in any event the concerned authority can, if he wishes to, make changes in the entry if he feels that wrong entry had been made. With regard to the payment, the Respondents submitted that after having adjusted the amount of penalty etc, the Appellant has still to pay around Rs.6000/ to the Public Authority. As for day to day penalty imposed upon the Appellant, the Respondent stated that that the total amount has been intimated to the Appellant and further break up cannot be give as no records of such break up are available.
6. The Commission on perusal of the information sought and provided thereto noted that all the available information has been furnished to the Appellant. However, in the interest of the Appellant the Commission directs the PIO to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant giving the list of information sought that is not available in the records along with reasons for their nonavailability. The affidavit should reach the Commission by 16.9.10 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 23.9.10.
7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Subhash Chand Gupta M/s.Vishal Traders Kanchausi Bazar Auryai District Uttar Pradesh
2. The PIO North Central Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Allahabad Division Allahabad
3. The Appellate Authority North Central Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Allahabad Division Allahabad
4. Officer incharge, NIC