Central Information Commission
Rakesh Kumar Jef vs West Central Railway on 28 July, 2017
क य सच ू ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
लब बि डंग (पो ट ऑ फस केपास)
Club Building (Near Post Office)
ओ ड जेन यू कपस , नई !द ल -110067
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/RK/A/2016/001020-AB
In the matter of:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Jef
RB 4/432- A, Railways Officers Colony
New yard, Near Diesel Loco Shed, dist
Hoshangabad, Itarasi. M.P- 461115.
...Appellant
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
PIO & Sr. DPO
West Central Railways, O/o the DRM (P),
DRM (Rd) Bengali Colony, N-2, Habib Ganj,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh- 462024
...Respondents
Dates RTI application : 12.06.2015 CPIO reply : 07.07.2015 First Appeal : 04.08.2015 FAA Order : 01.09.2015 Second Appeal : 09.01.2016 Date of hearing : 24.07.2017 Fact:
The appellant has sought information regarding copy of Constitution of Social welfare centre and copy of document detailing election process for choosing various office bearers, whether Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma had performed his duty during the election at the Social Welfare Centre etc. The CPIO in his reply provided some information in the form of enclosures. Being aggrieved with the CPIO's reply, the appellant filed First appeal. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : PIO, Shri A.K. Lakkha, DPO
During the hearing the respondent PIO submitted that they had asked for payment of photocopying charges of Rs. 10 (for five pages) for providing copies of election Bye Laws of Social Welfare Centre, New yard, Itarasi, railway station vide their first reply on 07.07.2015. He further submitted that the necessary payment was made on 09.07.2015 by the appellant and on receipt of the same, they provided the reply on 01.09.2015 in which it was stated on point nos. 2-4 that the sought for information was not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The appellant was not present to plead his case.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that proper reply was provided enclosing therewith the relevant documents after following due procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the RTI Act. The Commission has no reason to interfere in the matter.
The information provided is just and proper and moreover as the appellant was not there to contest his case, interference of the Commission is not called for.
With the above observation, the appeal 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 2