Central Information Commission
Aakash Goel vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 7 October, 2024
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/MORLY/A/2023/650409
CIC/MORLY/A/2023/653089
Aakash Goel .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Ministry of Railway, Railway Board,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
PIO,
Ministry of Railways Railway Board
Room No. 145-A, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 26.09.2024
Date of Decision : 07.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the subject-
matter is similar in nature and hence are being disposed of through a
common order.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 06.10.2023, 18.10.2023, 19.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 06.10.2023, 20.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.10.2023, 28.11.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Page 1 of 7
CIC/MORLY/A/2023/650409
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2023 seeking the following information:
a. Number of pending cases at beginning of FY22-23.
b. Number of new cases added during FY22-23.
c. Number of cases disposed during FY22-23.
d. Number of pending cases at beginning of FY23-24.
e. Total of bills raised by Lawyers / Law Firms during FY22-23.
f. Total of payments made to Lawyers / Law Firms during FY22-23.
g. Total of outstanding payment pending to be made to Lawyers/Law
Firms at end of FY22-23.
h. Total number of hearings/dates across all cases Lawyers / Law Firms
appeared for Indian Railways during FY22-23.
1. Total number of filings/affidavits across all cases Lawyers/Law Firms appeared for Indian Railways during FY22-23.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.10.2023 stating as under:
2. In this regard, partial information on parts (a), (b), (c) & (d) in respect of Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) is as under-
a. 25192 b. 3732 c. 6369 d. 22555
The PIO, M/o. Railway Board vide its letter dated 19.01.2024 had provided point-wise reply w.r.t gazetted officers of Railway Board Secretariat Service (RBSS), Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers' Service, Misc. & Ex-Cadre and Organized Railway Service (Posted in Railway Board), which states as under:
"1 . a part. Nineteen (19)
2. b part. Three (03)
3. c part. Four (04) Page 2 of 7
4. d part. Eighteen (18)
5. e part, 6. f part, 7. g part : As per available records, during FY 22-23, total value of fee bills preferred by advocates/Govt. aw counsels engaged in court cases relating to Gazetted Officers of Railway Board Secretariat Service (RBSS), Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers' Service (RBSSS), Misc. and Ex- Cadre, & Organized Railway Service (Posted in Railway Board) amounts to Rupees One lakh ninety thousand nine hundred (Rs.1,09,900/-). However, as final settlement, payment of Rupees Twenty Eight thousand twenty five only (Rs.28,025/-) has been made during 2022-23, while bills of Rs.70,900 could not be processed during Financial year 2022-23
8. h part, 9. I part: Such data are not maintained. Therefore, information sought cannot be provided, as retrieving the data scattered across various files and compiling the same would disproportionately divert the resources of public authority"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 30.10.2023, held as under.
Your appeal has been examined in light of the request made by you and it is to inform that as per para 3(iii) of DoPT's OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008, in cases when a part of RTI application is available with public authority and the rest of the information is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the PIO of the public authority receiving the application should give information relating to it and advise the applicant to make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. You, therefore, may seek the remaining information from Zonal Railways as per list provided to you already.
CIC/MORLY/A/2023/653089 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2023 seeking the following information:
a. Number of pending cases at beginning of FY22-23.
b. Number of new cases added during FY22-23.
c. Number of cases disposed during FY22-23.
d. Number of pending cases at beginning of FY23-24.
e. Total of bills raised by Lawyers / Law Firms during FY22-23.
f. Total of payments made to Lawyers / Law Firms during FY22-23.
Page 3 of 7
g. Total of outstanding payment pending to be made to Lawyers/Law Firms
at end of FY22-23.
h. Total number of hearings/dates across all cases Lawyers / Law Firms
appeared for Indian Railways during FY22-23. i. Total number of filings/affidavits across all cases Lawyers/Law Firms appeared for Indian Railways during FY22-23.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.10.2023 stating as under:
Remarks:- This is a grievance cum RTI application. Panel of Railway Advocates are presently appointed by Department of Legal Affairs, MoL&J. Payment of bills of the panel advocates are made by different Zonal Railways, different directorates of Railway Board, different divisions and Production Units. The information sought is not available in the asked form. There are a lot of data to be collected from all the mentioned offices calculated which will take unwanted manpower resources. Hence This RTI is being rejected as per RTI Act, 2005 clause 7(9) Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 28.11.2023, held as under.
4. Being dissatisfied from the above reply of the CPIO, The appellant has filed appeal two times, first on 05.10.2023 on the ground "No response within the time limit." And second time on 20.10.2023 on the ground " Refused access to Information Requested"
5. I have examined the appeal and reply of the CPIO dated 18.10.2023 and it is decided that the reply furnished by the CPIO is satisfactory and this appeal stands disposed off.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Chhote Lal, Director & CPIO, Shri Sunil Kumar, Assistant Section Officer, Shri D K Biswas, DD (PG), RTI Cell, Ms. Lasang Yolmo, Dy. Director & CPIO, Shri Parveen Kumar, Section Officer and Shri G K Katiyar, Under Secretary present in person.Page 4 of 7
Written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent. The Appellant further submitted that Dept of Legal Affairs of Central Govt, post Cabinet Approval in 2018, launched a website to centralize data of all legal cases across Ministries and Departments. The website is called LIMBS, acronym being Legal Information Management and Briefing System, but the Respondent Public Authority has not complied with the same.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 06.10.2023 and 19.01.2024, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. Further, the information sought on point Nos. (e) to (i) cannot be provided as the information sought is scattered in various files and compiling the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. The replies of the Respondent were seen during the hearing.
The Respondent contended that they have not received any such instructions from their department to upload the data on the said website as referred by the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that complete information was not provided to him by the concerned PIO. From the perusal of records, the Commission observes that information sought by the Appellant vide his RTI application has already been provided to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act where factual position in the matter was informed to the Appellant. Further, part information on point Nos. (e) to (i) of the RTI application has also been provided to the Appellant. Remaining information is voluminous in nature and is scattered in various files and compiling the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.Page 5 of 7
The Commission further observes that the Appellant in the instant RTI Applications has sought scattered information that requires collection & collation of the data which would divert the time and resources of the public authority. Further, in terms of para 3 (iii) of DoP&T OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12th June 2008, the Appellant should file separate RTI Applications to different offices in order to obtain such scattered information.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
It is noted that the Appellant did not approach the Commission with clean hands as he did not disclose during the hearing that the PIO had already replied to him. He is advised to be cautious in future.
No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The above-mentioned second appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Ministry of Railway, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 Page 6 of 7 The FAA, Ministry of Railways Railway Board Room No. 145-A, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.Page 7 of 7
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)