Central Information Commission
Dhirendra Kumar Verma vs South East Central Railway on 26 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067.
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/AB/A/2016/000440-AB
In the matter of:
Dhirendra Kumar Verma
Railway Qtr- No- 6A1/Unit-1,
Near Old Bata Gate,Gole Bazar,
Kharagpur, West Bengal- 721301
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
PIO and Sr. DPO, South Eastern Railway,
O/o the DRM (P), DRM Building, near Bilimoria
Petrol Pump, Kharagpur, West Bengal- 721301
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 30.11.2015
CPIO reply : 07.01.2016
First Appeal : 09.02.2016
FAA Order : 23.03.2016
Second Appeal : 15.04.2016
Date of hearing : 18.05.2017
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 30.11.2015 to the APIO & Sr DMM S.E. Rly., KGP sought information on 40 points relating to Railway Quarter at Kharagpur, electrical charges per unit, how electrical charges are fixed, actions taken to prevent unauthorised electric hooking, procedure for imposing penalty for open defecation in the railway quarters area, reason for denying reservation on special duty pass, reason for charging the use of urinal, various types of parking charges for vehicles on KGP station, puja mall, copy of details of arrears of teaching allowance of the appellant, details of CEA submitted by the appellant and the CEA given to appellant from April 2011 till date, reason why he was not paid the teaching allowance arrears, schedule of inspection of personnel 1 (welfare) inspector & APO at civil engg. Training centre, S.E.Rly, Kharagpur, action taken against the officer responsible for delayed payment of child education allowance to the appellant, copy of rule according to which DRM has been empowered to give standing order to personnel department of KGP without consent of party, criteria to transfer the luggage picker (coolie)'s license to others, to whom the luggage picker (coolie's) license can be transferred, name of the department of railway responsible for transfer of license of these luggage pickers (coolie), action taken against the track maintainers who were appointed on the basis of false license, which department of railways has appointed the luggage pickers (coolies) as track maintainers, action taken against Sri Rampyare for encroachment, details of all 17 track maintainers with the details of encroached area, actions taken to remove encroachments done by Sri Rajendra Kumar, actions taken to remove unauthorised encroachment of 24 hours water supply connections, copy of order by which railway has permitted to municipality to lay pipeline at golebazar railway quarters area, year(s) in which railway quarters were repaired, rules relating to number of persons allowed in railway quarter(s) and within which time period the trees at the boundary wall of the appellant's will be trimmed by the railway staff etc. The PIO & Sr. DPO S.E. Railway vide letter dated 07.01.2016 transferred the said RTI application to the Sr. DCM, Sr. DSC(RPF) & Sr. DEN (Co), S.E. Railway, Kharagpur stating that since they were the custodian of the relevant information, they might provide the relevant information within stipulated time period to the appellant.
The appellant in his second appeal had not enclosed any copy(s) of reply furnished by the above stated PIOs. However, the content of the first appeal memo shows that certain replies were provided by the concerned PIOs. For better appreciation of the facts, the content of the first appeal dated 09.02.2016 is extracted below:
" Sr. DEE (G)/KGP has furnished the information on only sl. No. (i), (ii) & (iii) out of
(xi) points. In response of sl. (iii), Sr. DEE (G)/KGP has furnished the information that since Jan 2015 to Nov 2015, 292 nos. Of anti hooking drive has been conducted i.e. average per day. I am not satisfied. Neither he lodged any FIR nor did any permanent solution.2
DRM (P)/KGP has decided after about one month vide above ref. No. (iii) that my RTI application provided by APIO & Sr. DMM/ S.E. Rly, KGP is illegible. After providing legible copy till date no information is provided to me." The FAA had vide its order dated 23.03.2016 observed as follows:
1. In your 1st application under the RTI Act 2005 you have asked information in various matters. There are 40 nos of issues raised by you in a single application.
2. Most of the issues raised by you are not comes under the purview of the RTI Act 2005.
3. The information which are pertains to Electrical (g) department has already been furnished to you.
4. You may receive the rest of the information from the office of the PIO & Sr. DPO/KGP as available. Since the information sought by you is voluminous in nature you may come for visual glimpse of the same. Otherwise after depositing the requisite information fee as per the RTI Act 2005 you can receive the available information from the office of the PIO & Sr. DPO/KGP.
5. As per the RTI Act-2005 that, PIO is only required to supply the 'material' in the form as held by the public authority and is not required to research or perform interpretations on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply to him. Also furnishing of advice/ opinion/ clarification/ confirmation/ explanation is also not covered within the ambit of RTI Act, 2005 and expressing views or opinions are beyond the scope and duties of Public Information Officer.
6. RTI Act-2005 is not the right forum to redress your grievances. For any service related grievances you may appeal to the competent authority.
The appellant being aggrieved with the FAA order, filed second appeal before this Commission on 15.04.2016 stating that without providing information, the FAA had disposed of his first appeal. He further stated that the FAA neither instructed the CPIO nor had he intimated to the appellant about the amount which was required to be deposited as photocopying charges under the RTI rules for supplying the required documents.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
3
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : APIO, Shri S.K. Pramanik, APO
During the hearing the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite information vide their letter dated 07.01.2016 which is just and proper and the case should be closed.
The appellant was not present to contest the contention of the respondent PIO.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that proper reply was not provided. A more comprehensive reply should have been provided to the appellant.
The respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record (certified true copies of the documents) e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc. free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
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.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 4