Central Information Commission
Rathod Anil vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 23 January, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MORLY/A/2023/669930
Rathod Anil .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Railways, Railway
Board RTI Cell, Room No.
5(GF) New Delhi-110001. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16-01-2024
Date of Decision : 19-01-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11-07-2022
CPIO replied on : 29-08-2022
First appeal filed on : 19-09-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28-12-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"A. Copy/or Documents of assessment sheet of IRSME vacancies processed for ESE- 2018 notification.
B. Copy/or Documents of noting for processing IRSME vacancies for ESE-2018 notification from initiation of concerned clerk to approval of competent authority."1
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.08.2022 stating as under:
"As regards item no. 4B, calculation of vacancies in JTS for recruitment to IRSME is available in indent file maintained for recruitment year 2018. You may inspect the relevant file available in office on mutually convenient date and time. In case you wish to retain any extracts from the relevant document/file, the same will be furnished on payment of requisite fee @ Rs.2/- per page towards the cost of official papers through an approved mode of payment of fee under Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of RTI Act. 2005 as per Rule 4 (a) of The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2012."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Rathod Anil, attended the hearing. Respondent: Smt. Uma Subramanian, CPIO & Joint Director (Estt.) and Shri Mukesh Kumar Singh, Deputy Director, attended the hearing.
The Appellant stated that though the Respondent has provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application but the same has been received beyond the stipulated timeframe as per the provisions of RTI Act. He added that he has filed RTI Application under BPL category and knowing this fact, the Respondent has sought the documentation fee which is in contravention to the provisions of RTI Act.
The Respondent submitted that earlier the then CPIO inadvertently has sought the documentation fee from the Appellant, as the proof submitted by the Appellant regarding BPL category bears the nomenclature PHH causing such confusion.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that an adequate information as sought in the instant RTI Application has been furnished by the 2 Respondent and the Appellant has also expressed his satisfaction over the same. Further the Commission after perusal of the records gives benefit of doubt to the Respondent that the proof submitted by the Appellant bears the nomenclature PHH rather than BPL which leads to such confusion. No intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date 19-01-2024 Sh. Rathod Anil Beeri B Thanda, PO - Beeri B, District - Bidar, Karnataka - 585328.3