Central Information Commission
Jaiprakash Verma vs East Central Railway (Hajipur) on 15 June, 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/2016/000590-AB
In the matter of:
Jaiprakash Verma
Shivji Nagar, Parwani Gauri, Station Road,
Mihipurwa, Nanpara, Distt - Behraich UP
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
PIO
Northeast Railway DRM Office, Ashok Marg,
Prem Nagar, Hazratganj, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh - 226001
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 31.12.2015
CPIO reply : Not on record
First Appeal : 04.03.2016
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 14.04.2016
Date of hearing : 07.06.2017
Facts:
The appellant sought information on 3 points, relating to allotment of shops. The CPIO's or of the FAA's replies are not on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Absent
Both the parties are absent
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that the reply of the CPIO was not on record. Being aggrieved by this, the appellant went in for first appeal on 04.03.2016. The FAA's order is also not on record. On the basis of RTI application, it is clear that the RTI application dated 31.12.15 is about irregularities in allotment of railway land in Mihipurwa railway station under NE railway for the years 1980 to 1982. The information sought in para 1 of the RTI application is eminently disclosable and could have been provided to the appellant as the information sought was in regard to illegal construction of shops on railway land and these must be available on record.
In regard to point nos. 2 and 3, it is seen that there are specific allegations against certain encroachers and the information sought for is more as grievance /vigilance action in regard to the ineffectiveness on the part of the authorities to clear the railway land from the encroaches. It is also seen that in regard to points 2 and 3, the appellant wanted action taken against those encroachers and the railway officials who had connived with these encroachers. The point nos. 2 and 3 are accordingly not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act but the point no. 1 is covered u/s 2(f ) of the RTI Act, hence, the information as available should have been provided to the appellant.
The respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply (on point no. 1) complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought for e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act. In case the records sought for are old, the CPIO is to submit a clear affidavit that such records are not available/destroyed with a copy of the relevant record retention schedule by which the said records were weeded out, to the Commission with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
2The 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.
CPIO may note that non-compliance of this order may lead to penal action u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act against the respondent CPIO.
With the above direction, the case is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 3