Central Information Commission
Deepesh Dayal vs Ministry Of Railways on 1 February, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/BJ/C/2016/000037-AB
In the matter of:
Deepesh Dayal,
...Complainant
Vs.
DPG & CPIO
RTI Cell, Room No- 507, 5th Floor
Railway Board, New Delhi-01
&
R. N Gedam,
PIO/APO(M)
Central Railway, DRM's office
Beside Central Railway Ground,
Anil Nagar, Jalgaon, Bhusawal
Maharashtra-425203
&
Shri M. S. Tomar,
PIO/Div Engineer, DRM's Office,
Central Railway, Beside Central Railway
GroundAnil Nagar, Jalgaon, Bhusawal
Maharashtra-425203
&
DGM and PIO, Central Railway, GM's Office,
CST Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400001
&
APIO(Engg.)/DEN(S/W), Divisonal Office,
CentralRailway, Beside Central Railway
GroundAnil Nagar, Jalgaon, Bhusawal
Maharashtra-425203
&
V.P.Dahat,
APIO/DCM, DRM's Office,
Commercial Branch, Beside Central Railway
GroundAnil Nagar, Jalgaon, Bhusawal
Maharashtra-425203 ...Respondents
1
` Dates
RTI application : Not mentioned
CPIO reply : Not on record
First Appeal : Not on record
FAA Order : Not on record
Complaint : 23.05.2016
Date of hearing : 16.08.2017, 04.01.2018
Facts:
The complainant vide RTI application dated nil sought information on 9 points:
date of joining of Shri Sudhir Gupta, details of cases initiated under PPE Act for eviction of unauthorised occupants etc. The CPIO's reply is not on record.The complainant being aggrieved filed complaint before this Commission on 23.05.2016.
Grounds for complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Interim Order
Complainant : Absent
Respondent : APIO, Shri K.L. Gedam,
APO (Jalgaon)
Absent in Delhi
The RTI application has no date.
During the hearing the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the final reply on 8.8.17 which is just and proper and the case should be dismissed. Since the same was not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
The complainant was not present to plead his case.
On perusal of the case record, it is seen thatthe complainant requested for levying of penalty on the respondent in his complaint dated 23.05.16 and the fact is that RTI application must be filed prior to that.In the present case 2 however, the RTI application was filed without any date mentioned thereon. However the record shows no reply from the respondent in this case. The APIO, Jalgaon who attended the hearing was unable to submit any reason for non provisioning of any final reply to the complainant in all these years. The reply provided was also not proper and comprehensive.
In the absence of any final reply in the case paper, the Commission is constrained to issue A Show Cause Notice to the PIO, DPG, RTI Cell, Railway Board and PIO, Central Railway, DRM Office, Jalgaon u/s 20 of the RTI Actto explain as to why reply to the said RTI application dated nil had not been provided to the complainant in all these years.
The explanation to the Show Cause Notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO/PIO within 15 days of the receipt of the order. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name, address, mobile no., present place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post till date. The present respondent CPIO shall serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause Notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent CPIO should note that in case of non-submission of explanation within the above stipulated time, the Commission can take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Final Order : 04.01.2018
Respondent : Shri V.P. Dahat,
Divisional Commercial Manager cum APIO,
Jalgaon, Central Railway
Shri Mandeep Sahni,
Assistant Divisional Finance Manager cum
PIO, Mumbai, Central Railway
Shri D.K. Biswas,
Deputy Director (PG) cum APIO, Delhi
3
Shri M.S. Tomar,
PIO-III/ DEN(Co), DRM's Office,
Central Railway
During the hearing, Shri M.S Tomar, DEN(S/W) APIO (Engineering) submitted that they had not received the RTI application dated 03.04.2016. He further submitted that the GM office Mumbai had forwarded the said RTI application to their office through online mode but at that time their office was not equipped to deal with online applications/ appeals. Due to non-receipt of the RTI application by their office, the information could not be provided to the appellant. However, on receipt of the CIC's interim order dated 16.08.2017 they came to know about this RTI application and had promptly provided all the sought for information to the applicant vide their letter dated 07.09.2017. The same was however returned by the Postal Department stating that "Addressee left, return to sender".
The respondent PIO, Delhi submitted that the online RTI application dated 03.04.2016 was received by them on 03.04.16 only and they transferred the same to the DGM, CST, Mumbai, Shri Saket Kumar Mishra on 04.04.16. He further submitted that DGM, CST, Mumbai received the same on 07.04.2016. He transferred the same through electronic mode to Sr. DCM, Bhusawal division on 12.04.2016, in addition it was also transferred manually on 15.04.2016 vide letter no. CR/RTI CELL/2016/8926. Since these transfer letters u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act were not available in the case file, the respondent PIO was asked to send the same to the Commission through the quickest mode. The DCM, Bhusawal submitted that at that time RTI online portal was not in operation, that was why they did not receive the same RTI application and even the RTI application transferred manually was not received by them.
The respondent PIO, Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, Sr. DCM, Bhusawal was not present despite valid and timely notice of the CIC. There was no information from Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra about not attending this hearing.
4On perusal of the case record, it was seen that the then respondent PIO, Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, Sr. DCM, Bhusawal is responsible for not providing timely reply despite receipt of the letter dated 15.04.2016 from the DCM, CST, Mumbai first by electronic mode on 12.04.2016 and then through manual mode on 15.04.2016.
In view of the above, show cause notices issued to other PIOs are dropped. Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, Sr. DCM, Bhusawal is directed to declare on oath before the Commission by submitting an affidavit stating that the letter no. CR/RTI CELL/2016/8926 dated 15.04.2016 was not received in his office within a period of 10 days from the receipt of this order. In case the same is not received in the Commission by the time stipulated above, the Commission will be at liberty to decide the case against him under the provision of the RTI Act.
With the above direction, the complaint is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to all the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 5