Central Information Commission
Dilip Kumar Sarkhel vs Northeast Frontier Railway (Guwahati) on 31 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067.
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/AB/A/2016/000448-AB
In the matter of:
Dilip Kumar Sarkhel
Vivekananda Nagar, Post- East
Udayrajpur, Madhyamgram,
Kolkata, West Bengal- 700129
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
North East Frontier Railway,
PO- Maligoan, Railway Headquarter,
Guwahati, Assam- 781011
&
Central Public Information Officer,
PIO and Sr. DCM, North East Frontier Railway,
DRM's Office, Alipurduar Division, Alipurduar,
West Bengal
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 12.10.2015
CPIO reply : 19.01.2016
First Appeal : 21.12.2015
FAA Order : 25.01.2016
Second Appeal : 28.03.2016
Date of hearing : 23.05.2017
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 12.10.2015 sought details relating to the meeting between NF Rly. and Mazdoor Union in respect of pension case. The CPIO NFR/HQ transferred the said RTI application to Sr. DCM/APDJ Cum PIO/APDJ u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act on 19.01.2016. The appellant filed first appeal on 21.12.2015 as no reply was received by him. The FAA vide his order dated 25.01.2016 stated that the ADRM/ Alipurduar is the appellate authority in this case. The appellant filed second appeal and challenged the Sec 6(3) 1 transfer by the CPIO as not proper. He further relied on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of WP(C) 288/2009 and WP(C) 6088/2014.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Rep. of appellant
Respondent : PIO, Shri Ujjwal Kumar, APO
During the hearing the respondent PIO submitted that they had not received the transferred RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act in the Alipurduar office and only after the receipt of the CIC hearing notice, they provided the requisite information vide their letter dated 17.05.17 which is just and proper and the case should be closed. The appellant submitted that a copy of such transfer under Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act was received by him. So, it is quite unlikely that the submission of the PIO that they did not receive any copy of the said RTI application along with Sec 6(3) transfer memo is correct. Since no reply from the respondent in this case was available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
After perusing the reply, it was found that the reply was not in consonance with the queries raised in the present RTI application.
A Show Cause Notice is issued to CPIO, Sr. DCM and APDJ Alipurduar to explain as to why such information was not provided to the appellant in all these years. The explanation to the said Show Cause Notice is to be submitted to the Commission within 21 days of the receipt of the order. On receipt of the explanation to the Show Cause Notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
Be that as it may, since no information was provided so far to the appellant, the present respondent CPIO, Sr. DCM and APDJ, Alipurduar is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant, as available on record including certified true 2 copies of the documents e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc. free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a compliance report containing the copy of the revised reply and despatch details of the same thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 3