Central Information Commission
Satish Kumar Singh vs Northern Railway on 9 October, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NRAIL/A/2023/635270
Satish Kumar Singh .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Northern Railway, Divisional Office,
Hazratganj, Lucknow - 226001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.10.2024
Date of Decision : 09.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.01.2023
CPIO replied on : 01.02.2023
First appeal filed on : 12.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 21.04.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.01.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
1- Wants to know the validity period of joining the promotional panel issued by DRM (P)/LKO on 23.01 2020. in S&T Department 2- Wants the current authentic Seniority list of JE/Sig in LKO Division 3- Wants the current authentic Seniority list of SSE/Sig in LKO Division 4- Wants to know the Designation of Satish Kumar Singh between Feb-2 013 to 27.09.2020
(i)-JE/Sig
(ii)-JE/Sig/RRI/NR/BSB
(iii)-SSE/Sig
(iv)-SSE/Sig/RRI/NR/BSB
5.- Designation mentioned in the letter issued by Personal Department on 26.09.2020 to SSE/Sig/RRL 6- Design. of Satish Kumar Singh, mentioned in the transfer letter from LKO to STTC/GZB issued by Personal Department on 28.09.2020 to SSE/Sig/RRI.
6- Photocopy of all applications if presented by Satish Kumar Singh regarding Refugal or acceptance of promotion on SSE post 7- Photocopies of all issued concerned promotional Panel after date 23.01.2020 The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01.02.2023 stating as under:
1- Item no 1-Please refer Master circular 37 for this. 2- Item no 2,3 & 8-You need to submit Rs-16/-(Rs-2/-per sheet) for getting Seniority list of JE&SSE/Sig 3- item no 04-JE/Sig from Feb 2013 to -22.01.20 SSE/Sig from 23.01.20 till date.
4- Item no 05-SSE/Sig. 5- Item no 06-Not received in this office.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 21.04.2023, held as under.
1- Item no 1-it is stated that RTI appeal can only be made against the disposal of items contained In original RTI applications while the appellant has raised different queries. In addition, as per CIC Judgement in case no CIC/AT/A/2006/0045 dated-21.04.06 in the matter of Dr DV RAO Vs Yashwant Singh, the RTI act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes such as why, what, when & whether.
2- Item no 2- The current Seniority list is attached herewith.Page 2 of 6
3- Item no 03,04 & 06-In the original RTI application, the appellant has sought detalls of Personnel department letter dated -26.09.20 & 28.09.20, but now he is asking the details of letter dated- 25.09.20, which was not asked in original RTI application dated-11.01.23. Hence the information already provided by this office letter dated-01.02.23.
4- Item no 05- No disposal needed as the applicant has only made the statement.
5- Item no 07-As per CIC judgement in case no CIC/RAILB/A/2018/630862 dated-10.07.20, under the provision of RTI act the public authority is not required to interpret information or provide the clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. further as per CIC judgement in case no CIC/AT/A/2006/0045 dated-21.04.06 in the matter of Dr D V Rao Vs Yashwant Singh, the RTI act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes such as why, what, when & whether.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Ram Pravesh Yadav, APO and Shri D Badal, OS present through Video-Conference.
Written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that the Respondent has provided wrong information on point No. 4 of the RTI application. The Appellant contended that he has joined as JE and orders for his promotion as SSE were issued by the Public Authority along with his posting at Banaras but he has not joined there as SSE and continues working as JE and is presently posted in Ghaziabad.
The Respondent submitted that the relevant information based on available records has been given to the Appellant on 01.02.2023 and 21.04.2023. He further apprised the bench that the Appellant has not served a copy of the Page 3 of 6 instant Second Appeal in their office and the same has been received along with the hearing notice from the Commission.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant is aggrieved that complete and correct information on point No. 4 of the RTI application has not been provided to him.
It further appeared during the hearing that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance related to admissibility of certain special allowance at his new place of posting (Ghaziabad) which is connected with the rank of JE but not with that of SSE.
The Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."Page 4 of 6
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) The Commission further observes from the argument made by the Appellant during the hearing that wrong information has been provided to him by the Respondent on point No. 4 of the RTI application. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to re-examine point No. 4 of the RTI application and give revised updated information to the Appellant stating clearly his position/rank in the organization during the period Feb-2013 to 27.09.2020 (as per RTI application) and present status, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance with this order.
Be that as it may, it is noted that the Appellant has not served a copy of the instant Second Appeal upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Appellant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is crucial for fairness, transparency, and due process in legal proceedings and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bona fide interest of the Appellant/Complainant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advance service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing of a case in CIC, arguments of the Appellant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the Appellant/Complainant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Appellants before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster Page 5 of 6 delivery of information, thus, leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Appellant/Complainant to serve copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy to:
The FAA, Northern Railway, Divisional Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow - 226001 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)