Central Information Commission
M V Ramana vs South Central Railway (Secunderabad) on 14 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SCRLS/A/2024/113356
M V Ramana .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway
Manager, South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Sarojini Devi Road,
Secunderabad - 500005 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025
Date of Decision : 14.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.01.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 02.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 31.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"I request you to furnish the attested copies of the following information under RTI Act, 2005, regarding the permissions and other details, regarding the Rail Under Bridge Near Gate No.164-E:Page 1 of 4
1. Copies of designs of Road Under Bridge (RUB) near gate No. 164-E towards Kurnool.
2. Estimation copies the above RUB.
3. All correspondence led with your higher authorities regarding the above RUB.
4. Copies of total Estimate accorded to the above RUB.
5. Copies of sanction accorded to the above RUB.
6. Copies of paper publication inviting the above Tender.
7. Copies of the agreement between the highest bidder and the Railways.
8. Copy of the Topography plan of the RUB at gate No. 164-E.
9. Copies of Sketch plan/Design of the RUB at gate No.164-E."
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2024. The FAA order is Not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
4. The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Absent.
5. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
6. The Respondent did not participate in the hearing.
7. A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 05.05.2025, stating as under:
"I request you to furnish the attested copies of the following information under RTI Act, 2005. regarding the permissions and other details, regarding the Rail Under Bridge Near Gate No.164-E:
1. Copies of designs of Road Under Bridge (RUB) near gale No. 164-E towards Kurnool.
2. Estimation copies the above RUB.
3. All correspondence led with your higher authorities regarding the above RUB.
4. Copies of total Estimate accorded to the above RUB.
5. Copies of sanction accorded to the above RUB
6. Copies of paper publication inviting the above Tender.
7. Copies of the agreement between the highest bidder and the Railways.Page 2 of 4
8. Copy of the Topography plan of the RUB at gate No. 164-E.
9. Copies of Sketch plan/Design of the RUB at gate No. 164-E Written Arguments: The PIO 0/0 Divisional Manager, Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh, and FAA cum Divisional Railway Manger, Hyderabad Division, Telengana State the requested information belongs to public/ government property which Clearly lies public domain. I request you Sir, to take action u/s 20(1) of RTI act, and order them to furnish the information at an early date."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that no reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant as per available records. The issues raised in the RTI Application espouse larger public interest. Further, the Respondent did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance. Accordingly, the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the concerned CPIO for neither providing any reply qua the instant RTI Application nor participating in the hearing and therefore he/she is being called to show cause. The act of the concerned CPIO, tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission. In view of the above, inaction on his/her part is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to concerned CPIO. The CPIO shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons, written explanation of the CPIO should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
9. In the meantime, the Commission directs the concerned CPIO to examine the instant RTI Application and provide pointwise information to the Appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
10. The FAA shall ensure compliance with this order.
11. A copy of this order is marked to the FAA who shall ensure that a copy of this order is received by the erring CPIO. The FAA is further directed to ensure that under all circumstances, written submissions of the erring CPIO should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of Page 3 of 4 receipt of this order, failing which proceedings will be held ex-parte and decision passed. The FAA shall inform the Commission the name/names of the CPIO at the relevant time who was/were supposed to give reply to the Appellant and the name of CPIO who did not appear in the hearing.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad - 500005 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)