Central Information Commission
Dinesh Kumar Singh vs Northern Railway on 28 August, 2018
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/NRAIL/A/2017/127930
Dinesh Kumar Singh
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/APO, Northern Railway Divisional
Office, Rail Vihar DRM office,
Near Ambala Bus stand, Ambala Cantt - 134003. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 08.02.2016
CPIO reply : 02.03.2016
First Appeal : 07.06.2016
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 17.04.2017
Date of hearing : 21.08.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 08.02.2016 sought information on two points as under;
1. Copy of proposal in respect of the letter dated 23.02.2004.
2. Whether the approval of ADRM/DRM was taken, if yes, copy of such approval.
The CPIO replied on 02.03.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply filed first appeal on 07.06.2016. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second Page 1 of 3 appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 17.04.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Absent
The respondent was found absent despite valid and timely notice of the CIC for which warning is issued to the concerned respondent PIO. The concerned PIO should desist from committing such lapse in future. He should either take prior permission of the Commission before absenting himself from the hearing or he should send proper representative to the Commission's hearing after obtaining due permission from the Commission for doing so and after briefing the authorised representative duly.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the respondent CPIO had claimed in its reply on point no. (a) of the RTI application that records are not available. He is directed to file an affidavit in this regard. On point no. (b) of the RTI application, proper information should be provided e.g. copy of the extant procedure for transfer of station master should be provided to the appellant in this case.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case in regard to some point, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised point wise reply on point no. (b) e.g. copy of the extant procedure for transfer of station master, complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of Page 2 of 3 the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
The present respondent CPIO, is directed to submit an affidavit on point no. a indicating the date of destruction / weeding out of the said records along with a copy of the order of the competent authority authorising such destruction / weeding out within one month of the receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within the same time period.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय)
Amitava Bhattacharya (अिमताभ टाचाय
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra ,
Dy. Registrar
011- 26182594 / [email protected] अजय कु मार तलपा , उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date Page 3 of 3