Central Information Commission
Tarun Agrawal vs North Western Railway on 3 June, 2020
CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/162359
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/162359
In the matter of:
Tarun Agrawal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
North Western Railway, RTI Cell,
Divisional Office,
Ajmer, Rajasthan
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 09.04.2018 FA : 25.05.2018 SA : 15.10.2018
CPIO : 23.05.2018 FAO : 15.06.2018 Hearing : 28.05.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over the phone
CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/162359
Respondent: Shri Hemant Sulania, DPO, North Western Railway, RTI Cell,
Ajmer, Rajasthan, heard over the phone
ORDER
Information Sought and Brief Facts:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 09.04.2018 seeking information on three points pertaining to parking construction works carried out by the Railway Department near Topdara railway gate near Ajmer railway station, including,
a) To provide certified copy of the following:
i. Tender release, ii. G / H Schedule, drawing, map iii. Work Order, iv. Contract, v. Estimate, vi. Quality Certificate, vii. Record entry of work - MB
b) To provide Engineer(s) name, designation, and mobile number.
c) The applicant wants to observe the said work from the record entry recorded in MB and check the work, get the samples of the work and material inspected for the workability of CC work. Please provide the date of inspection.
The CPIO provided point wise reply vide letter dated 23.05.2018. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 25.05.2018. FAA, vide order dated 15.06.2018, offered inspection to the appellant.
CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/162359 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied by the information provided by the respondent on point no. 1(8) and point no. 3 of his RTI application. He further submitted that the respondent, vide letter dated 23.05.2018 offered inspection of relevant documents, to the appellant on the above noted points. The appellant, however, has not sought inspection under point no. 1(8). Further, on point no. 3, the appellant has sought inspection of samples available on the site, and not the inspection of documents. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information sought for.
The respondent submitted that the appellant vide point no. 1(8) of his RTI application has sought certified copy of MB. He further submitted that MB is generated when a bill is raised. However, since, at the time of responding to the RTI application, no bill had been raised, thus, no MB was generated. Therefore, vide letter dated 23.05.2018, the appellant was provided inspection of the documents that were available on record. However, the appellant chose not to inspect. He further submitted that vide point no. 3, the appellant desired to inspect the site in comparison to the MB. However, since no MB was raised, the inspection could not be provided. He furthermore submitted that since now the MB has been generated, the appellant, if so desires, can still inspect the relevant records on any given date. In response to a query, he submitted that MB is a voluminous CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/162359 document, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization.
The appellant contended that he does not desire to inspect the records.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that due information, as available on record, has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. The Commission further notes that the appellant was requested to inspect the relevant records. However, he chose not to inspect. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमतापांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 28.05.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/162359 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority RTI Cell, Divisional Office North Western Railway, Ajmer, Rajasthan
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) RTI Cell, Divisional Office, North Western Railway, Ajmer, Rajasthan
3. Shri Tarun Agrawal