Central Information Commission
Abhishek Kumar vs Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 21 February, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायतसंख्या / Complaint No. CIC/ERAIL/C/2018/140004
Abhishek Kumar ...निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
M/o. Railways, Sr. DCM & PIO,
Eastern Railway, DRM's Office,
Commercial Branch, Sealdah
Division, Drm Building, Kaiser
Street, Kolkata, W. B.- 700014
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 09-05-2018 FA : Not on record Complaint: 26-06-2018
CPIO : 22-10-2018 FAO : Not on record Hearing: 20-02-2020
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Kolkata seeking information pertaining to procedure of mutual transfer/on request transfer of ALP/LP in the railways, including inter-alia, rules/guidelines, file notings etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information within a period of 30 days, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Page 1 of 3Hearing:
3. The complainant, Shri Abhishek Kumar, and the respondent, Shri Ganpati Duru, APIO, M/o Railways, Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The complainant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent. He requested the Commission to take appropriate legal action against the respondent as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The respondent submitted that complete information was provided to the respondent vide letter dated 22.10.2018. In response to a query, the respondent submitted that the appellant, vide his RTI application, sought information on twelve points. Since the information was pertaining to different departments, the same was collected from the concerned departments, and thus, there was a delay in providing the requisite information. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for the delay and requested the Commission to condone the same.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that although information has been provided to the appellant there has been a considerable delay in providing the same. The Commission further observes that if the information sought by the appellant required collecting of the requisite information from different departments, thus, causing delay, the respondent should have provided an interim reply within the stipulated period of 30 days, informing the appellant of the current factual position.
The respondent, CPIO, M/o Railways, Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Kolkata is, therefore, issued a warning to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur.
Page 2 of 37. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 20-02-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानितप्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाा), Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO M/o. Railways, Sr. DCM & PIO, Eastern Railway, DRM's Office, Commercial Branch, SealdahDivision, DRM Building, KaiserStreet, Kolkata, W. B.- 700014
2. Abhishek Kumar Page 3 of 3