Central Information Commission
Narendra Agarwal vs Ministry Of Railways on 5 January, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/MORLY/C/2017/603173
In the matter of:
Narendra Agarwal
...Complainant
VS
DPG and CPIO, RTI Cell, Room NO 507,
5th Floor, Railway Board, New Delhi-01
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 09.01.2017
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : 13.02.2017
FAA Order : Not on Record
Complaint : 04.05.2017
Date of hearing : 28.12.2017
Facts:
The complainant vide RTI application dated 09.01.2017 sought information on five points; copy of relevant record showing current status of Gauge Conversion/New Line (GC/NL) between Ratangarh-Sardarshahr- Suratgarh, copy of calculation statement of projected RoR (railway overbridge) for the route, copy of relevant record showing current status of NL between Sadulpur-Sardarshahr, copy of the calculation statement of the projected RoR for the route and copy of relevant record showing current status of NL between Nohar-Churu via Taranagar. The CPIO's reply or the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. The complainant filed a complaint under the 1 provision of Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 04.05.2017.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Interim Order
Complainant : Absent
Respondent : Shri R.K. Premi,
Deputy Director cum APIO,
Railway Board
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had sent a number of replies vide their letters dated 15.09.2017 and 27.12.2017 to the appellant on the same subject. The reply furnished to the complainant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The complainant was not present to plead his case.
On perusal of the case record it was seen that the reply provided by the Deputy Director, Shri R.K. Premi was delayed.
The respondent APIO during the hearing submitted that because there was problem in the management of online RTI applications, the reply furnished was delayed. However this explanation for the delay is not acceptable to the Commission because of the fact that the said online system was introduced in the railways quite sometimes ago and blaming the digital system for all delays is neither fair not factual. The then respondent PIO, Shri Vijay Garg, Director(Works) is held responsible for providing the delayed information in the present case.
In view of the above, a Show-Cause notice is issued to the then CPIO/PIO, Shri Vijay Garg, Director(Works) u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
Why the delayed reply was provided to the complainant in regard to the RTI application dated 09.01.2017?2
The explanation to the above stated Show-Cause notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO/PIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show-Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent CPIO should note that in case of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 3