Central Information Commission
Mr.Harinder S Chauhan vs Ministry Of Railways on 22 May, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000619
Date of Hearing : May 22, 2012
Date of Decision : May 22, 2012
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Harinder S. Chauhan
Advocate
Chamber No.140
Western Wing
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi 110 054
The Applicant was represented by Shri Harsh Dev Shastri during the hearing
Respondents
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board
O/o ED/E (Sports)
Rail Bhavan
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri S.Banerjee, APIO42
Shri S.D.Ramala, Sports Coordinator
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000619
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.13.9.11 with the PIO, Railway Board seeking information related to out of turn promotion for sportsmen as also information related to their pay scales against nine points. The PIO replied on 20.10.11 enclosing a copy of the policy letter dt.31.12.10 against point 1. With regard to other queries, the PIO stated that no data in the desired format is maintained in his office. He stated that proposals are considered on case to case basis on separate files. He informed the Applicant that if any specific information related to a case considered in his office, is required, the same can be furnished on the Applicant providing the details of the sports person. The PIO further added that the pay of sports persons on out of turn promotion is fixed by the respective railways as per the extant policy guidelines. The Applicant however filed an appeal dt.21.10.11 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide his order dt.24.11.11 stating that the information sought is not being maintained in the office. He enclosed a letter dt.21.11.11 addressed to CPIOs of all Zonal Railways/Units requesting them to furnish the requisite information directly to the Applicant. The Applicant thereafter filed a second appeal dt.9.12.11 before CIC stating that transfer of application to all the Divisions is an excuse to delay the information.
Decision
2. It was noted by the Commission during the hearing that the replies to the RTI application as well as the first appeal was given by Ms. Jhanja Tripathy, who is the Appellate Authority and that strangely the reply to the RTI application was actually forwarded to the Applicant by the PIO. The Appellate Authority is directed to explain as to why the provisions of the RTI Act have been violated in this manner . The explanation should reach the Commission with a copy to the Appellant by 31 June, 2012.
3. it was further noted that the Appellate Authority in her reply to the RTI application had not transferred the RTI application to the Zonal offices for information against points 1 to 5 and that one month later she had a change of mind and had transferred the application to these Zonal offices . Had she (Appellate Authority) taken the decision to transfer the RTI application a month earlier to the Zonal offices, the information may have reached the Appellant sooner! The Appellate Authority is therefore advised to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act and to ensure that any transfer of applications is done so within the 5 days limit prescribed in Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
4. With regard to the remaining queries, the Respondents submitted that the RTI application has been transferred to 24 Public Authorities. The Appellant submitted that he had received responses from eight Public Authorities and that even they have supplied incomplete information.
5. The Commission accordingly directs the PIO to forward a copy of this order to the sixteen public Authorities with the direction to supply the information directly to the Appellant so as to reach him by 5.7.12. The PIOs of sixteen Public Authorities are further directed to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20(1) should not be imposed on them for not responding to the transferred RTI application within the stipulated time period as prescribed in the RTI Act. They may submit their explanations to the PIO, Railway Board who will compile the same and send a consolidated reply to the Commission by 10 July, 2012.
6. With regard to the Appellant's complaint that information supplied by eight Public Authorities is incomplete, the Appellant is directed to send a list of missing information to the PIO of the concerned Public Authorities within ten days of receipt of the order and the PIOs of the eight Public Authorities are directed to furnish the missing information if available on record to the Appellant within twenty days of receipt of such a list from the Appellant. The list of missing information along with a copy of the Commission's order may also be sent to the 16 PIOs who have not yet responded to the RTI application so that they can include this information, if not done already, in their replies. . The PIO, Railway Board to forward a copy of this order to all the concerned PIOs.
7. The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Harinder S. Chauhan Advocate Chamber No.140 Western Wing Tis Hazari Courts Delhi 110 054
2. The Public Information Officer Ministry of Railways Railway Board O/o ED/E (Sports) Rail Bhavan New Delhi
3. Shri Jhanja Tripathy ED/E (Sports) Ministry of Railways Railway Board Rail Bhawan New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC