Central Information Commission
Surendra Jain vs Ircon International Limited on 22 May, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IRCON/A/2017/166028
Surendra Jain ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, M/o Railway, CPIO, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Rail Land Development Authority,
New Delhi.
2. CPIO, M/o Railway, IRCON Infrastructure &
Services Limited, Saket, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 19-06-2017 FA : 26-07-2017 Appeal : 19-09-2017
CPIO : 18-07-2017 &
FAO : 16-08-2017 Hearing: 10-5-2019
29-06-2017
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Rail Land Development Authority, New Delhi seeking tender details of 'Multi Functional Complex' constructed outside the Jodhpur Railway Station, including, inter-alia, a certified copy of the agreement & relating notesheets.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information within a period of 30 days, the complainant filed the first appeal dated 26-07-2017 which was Page 1 of 4 disposed of by the first appellate authority on 16-08-2017. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Surendra Jain attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Samarjeet Singh, CPIO/RLDA and Mr. Parbha Shankar, Mgr., participated in the hearing representing the respondent(s) through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that no information has been provided to him till date.
Further, he informed the Commission that his 1st appeal was not transferred along with the RTI application to M/s IRCON and it was disposed of by the respondent no. 1/RLDA. Further, he informed the Commission that the RTI application was received by the respondent no. 1/RLDA on 22.06.2017 whereas it was transferred to M/s IRCON on 29.06.2017 and thus, it has been transferred after more than 5 days as prescribed u/Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The respondent no. 1 stated that the subject matter pertained to M/s IRCON and therefore, they had transferred the RTI application to M/s IRCON. Further, he stated that the 1st appellate authority of RLDA has dealt with the issue of RTI application fee wherein it was observed that the IPO was enchased by the RLDA and hence it was not sent to M/s IRCON along with the RTI application. Subsequently, they had sent a cheque of the stipulated amount to M/s IRCON on 17.08.2017 after the 1st appellate authority's order dated 17.08.2017. He also informed the Commission that a copy of the 1st appellate authority's order dated 17.08.2017 was also marked to the respondent no. 2.
6. The respondent no. 2, M/s IRCON stated that they could not receive the RTI application fee till date and therefore, they did not provide the information to the appellant. He also denied to have received a copy of the 1st appellate authority's order dated 17.08.2017 from the RLDA. However, later on, they agreed to provide the information to the appellant free of charge, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Decision:
7. This Commission observed that M/s IRCON has wasted so much of time on the issue of RTI application fee rather than coordinating with the respondent no. 1 or the appellant for disposing of the matter. Visibly, a copy of the 1st appellate authority's order dated 17.08.2017 has also been marked to the respondent no. 2, Page 2 of 4 M/s IRCON but they have denied this fact. Hence, this Commission observed that the respondent no. 2 cannot make an excuse to deny the information by contending that no response was even received from the appellant in order to clarify the issue of fee. This Commission is also of the opinion that there is delay in responding to the RTI application on the part of M/s IRCON and no malafide is involved on behalf of the respondent no. 1 in the initial transfer of the RTI application. Therefore, the concerned CPIO of M/s IRCON is hereby issued a warning for future to be careful and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. In view of the above, this Commission directs the respondent no. 2, M/s IRCON to provide the information to the appellant, as agreed to in para 6 above, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 10-05-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, M/o Railway,
CPIO, Rail Land Development Authority,
Near Safdarjung Railway Station,
Moti Bagh-1, New Delhi - 110021
2 The CPIO.
M/o Railway, APIO/IRCON/ISL,
IRCON Infrastructure & Services Limited,
REGD. Office C-4, District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi - 110017
3. Surendra Jain
Page 4 of 4