Central Information Commission
Vipin Kumar Tyagi vs Ircon International Limited on 30 June, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसं ख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/IRCON/A/2022/649169-UM
Mr.Vipin Kumar Tyagi
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
M/o. Railway,
Ircon International Limited,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
Mumbai Region, 7th Floor,
Central Railway's New Building,
D. N. Road, C.S.M.T., Mumbai-400001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.06.2023
Date of Decision : 30.06.2023
Date of RTI application 02.06.2022
CPIO's response 05.09.2022
Date of the First Appeal 28.07.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 20.09.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 10.09.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 4 Page 2 of 4etc. The CPIO, Ircon International Limited, vide letter dated 05.09.2022 stated as:-
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 20.09.2022 stated as:-
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Monu Kumar Tiyagi, representative attended the hearing, Respondent: Mr. Nitish Vishwashkarma, D.M Civil, attended the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding the mentioned construction of road over bridge and foot over bridge etc. He submitted that the reply which had been furnished was delayed and not in accordance with the information sought and in the RTI application. He stated that this RTI application was filed for the public interest and safety. While deposing in the hearing, he stated that the Department wilfully Page 3 of 4 and deliberately misled and hid information and requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant.He said that the Appellant sought some hypothical questions which can't be replied in the RTI Act 2005. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 10.06.2023 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the CPIO, to seek clarification from the appellant within a period of 05 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also advises the appellant to revert on the clarification letter issued to him by the respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. After receiving the clarification from the appellant, the respondent shall furnish correct and complete information to the appellant, free of cost, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभितएवंसत्याभितप्रभत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] भदनाक ं / Date: 30.06.2023 Page 4 of 4