Central Information Commission
Jacob Varghese vs Southern Railway on 4 March, 2021
CIC/SORLY/A/2019/104695
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/SORLY/A/2019/104695
In the matter of:
Jacob Varghese ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Dy General Manager,
Southern Railway, General
Manager's Office, Chennai.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 30.10.2018 FA : 20.11.2018 SA : 31.01.2019
CPIO Reply: 28.11.2018 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 02.03.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Jacob Varghese and Shri Abraham Joseph, Advocate participated
in the hearing through video conferencing from NIC Pathanamthitta.
Respondent: Shri V. Sivasamy, Nodal APIO and Dy. Director/PG Cell/HQrs.
participated in the hearing through video conferencing from NIC Chennai.
Page 1 of 8
CIC/SORLY/A/2019/104695
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 30.10.2018 seeking information pertaining to Cement Yard at Tiruvalla Railway Station under Trivandrum Division. He specifically sought as under:
"Ref: 1) Letter No. 2014/PL/29/239 of Ministry of Railways, Railway Board dt.16/11/2016
2) Letter No.2014/P1//29/239 of Minister of Railways and Coal dt.19/04/2018 to Prof. P.J. Kurien, then the Deputy Chairman Rajya Sabha.
3) My RTI letter dt.16/10/2018.
4) Your letter No. G.50/RTI/2018/Repn.090 dt. 22/10/2018.
Kindly refer my letter cited in no.3 in which I have asked for some information from your office but returned due to some technical reasons which you have mentioned in the ref.no.4.
As per your direction cited in no.4, I am sending herewith an Indian Bank Cheque No.197323 bearing an amount of Rs.10/-(Ten only) as the application fee which is drawn in favour of Principal Financial Advisor of Southern Railway and also a copy of my original application. While answering Qn.no.(3), provide me not only address of the officer but the officer to whom the application fee has to be remitted also."
The CPIO vide letter dated 28.11.2018 informed the Appellant as under:
"Vide your RTI application dt. 16.10.2018 (received in this office on 22.10.2018), you have sought certain information pertaining to "report of committee on shifting of cement yard of Thiruvalla Railway Station" under RTI Act 2008 and enclosed Indian Postal Order for Rs.50/- as application fee.
There were Two issues involved in your RTI application.
1. Payment of correct application fee and
2. On receipt of correct RTI fee providing of Information.
On issue No. 1 as you have submitted Indian postal order for Rs. 50, which is not prescribed application fee, has been returned and you have been asked to submit Page 2 of 8 CIC/SORLY/A/2019/104695 only Rs. 10 in form of Postal order, cash, Demand draft or Bankers cheque for processing your RTI application further.
On issue No. 2, though you have not submitted payment of Rs. 10/-, as per your request No. 3 of RTI application, the authority under whom the information may be available has been indicated to you to pursue further.
Instead of approaching the Railway Board viz. Dy. Director/PG&PIO(Co- ord)/Railway Board/New Delhi, you have again sent a cheque for Rs.10/- drawn on Indian Bank which is not a valid mode of payment as prescribed in para. 4 of Right to Information (Regulation of fee and Cost) Rules 2005.
Therefore, the same was also returned duly explaining the reasons for non- acceptance and also you have been advised to approach PIO/Railway Board for obtaining the information.
Now, for further clarity on this issue, you are hereby informed that the information sought vide your RTI application dt. 16.10.2018 is pertaining to Railway Board. You may directly approach Dy. Director/PG&PIO(Co-ord)/Railway Board/New Delhi.
Further, you have to make payment of Rs. 10/- as application fee to the Railway Board in favour of "Pay & Accounts Officer, Railway Board" directly as specified in Sec. 6(i) of RTI Act 2005 read with Rule 3 of Right to Information (Regulation of fee and Cost) Rules 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2018, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a 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 complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent.Page 3 of 8
CIC/SORLY/A/2019/104695 Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Advocate of the Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent. He further stated that the First Appeal has been adjudicated by a CPIO on 28.11.2018, which is incorrect and the same is in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. He apprised the Commission that the CPIO is not empowered to adjudicate the First Appeal.
The Respondent submitted that the Appellant at the first instance had submitted a Postal Order for an amount of Rs. 50/- drawn in the name of "FA&CAO, Southern Railway, Chennai", which was returned on 22.10.2018 on the ground that the administration cannot accept the aforesaid IPO for an amount of Rs. 50/- as the same is not the prescribed application fee under the RTI Act/Rules. He further submitted that the Appellant on 30.10.2018 had submitted an Indian Bank Savings Account Cheque bearing no. 197323 drawn in favour of "Principal Financial Advisor" for an amount of Rs. 10/-, which is also not an appropriate mode of payment. Hence, the instant RTI Application was disposed of by the APIO on 31.10.2018 by giving the proper details of the PIOs of the Railway Board to whom the Appellant can approach to obtain the relevant information. Afterwards, the Appellant filed a First Appeal, which was examined by the Dy. General Manager and Nodal CPIO on 28.11.2018. In this regard, he added that the returning of RTI Application accompanied by a fee of Rs. 50/- by the PIO is an act in accordance with the decision of a coordinate Bench of the Commission vide File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000579 and CIC/BS/C/2012/000470/2997 decided on 16.07.2013.
He further added that the CPIO is not bound to accept the additional fee/cost in advance because practically it is difficult to keep any amount in debit/credit form for adjustment as the said amount received is deposited with the Accounts Section Page 4 of 8 CIC/SORLY/A/2019/104695 and only refund orders can be issued to Accounts Section for making the refund of excess amount, if any, in any particular case. He furthermore added that to issue such unnecessary refund orders is also cumbersome and would put undue pressure and costs on the CPIO/Public Authority in the case of advance payments, if accepted.
The Appellant interjected to state that as on the date of the RTI Application, the IPO of Rs. 10/- was not available. Hence, he had to purchase the least available denomination, which was Rs. 50/-. He further stated that the Respondent has incorrectly returned the cheque, as the same is within the purview of the RTI Act/Rules.
In response to the Appellant's interjection, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant has not understood the difference between a personal cheque and a banker cheque. He further submitted that there is no denial of information by the Respondent. He furthermore submitted that the Appellant was advised/rather given four different options to obtain the information from the concerned Department/Section. At the instance of the Commission as to on what date the proper IPO was paid by the Appellant, the Respondent explained that till date a valid IPO has not been paid by the Appellant.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri V. Sivasamy, Nodal APIO and Dy. Director/PG Cell/HQrs. vide letter dated 17.02.2021, wherein he has emphasized on the aspect of fee payment rules as well as the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant vide letter dated 01.03.2021, wherein he has emphasized the aspect of returning the Page 5 of 8 CIC/SORLY/A/2019/104695 RTI Application alongwith the IPO; adjudicating the First Appeal by a CPIO and non-furnishing of information by the Respondent till date.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Appellant in the first instance had filed an IPO for an amount of Rs. 50/-, which was returned by the Respondent on the ground of excess fee. The Commission further observes that the Appellant in the second instance had filed a personal cheque instead of a banker's cheque, which is not a correct mode of payment of IPO as per the extant RTI Act/Rules. In this regard, the Commission finds it relevant to aver that the difference between a personal cheque and a banker's cheque are as follows:
1. A Cheque and a Demand Draft is a negotiable instrument while a Banker's Cheque is a non-negotiable instrument.
2. A Cheque is issued by customer (individual/company), whereas a Banker's Cheque/Demand draft is issued by a bank.
3. A Cheque is drawn by an account holder of a bank, whereas a Banker's Cheque is drawn by one branch of a bank on another branch of same bank.
4. In Cheque, payee gets payment after presenting Cheque to bank, while Demand Draft is issued after making payment to the bank.
5. A Cheque can be dishonored due to insufficient balance in drawer's account, while a Banker's Cheque cannot be dishonored as amount is paid beforehand.
6. Payment of Cheque can be stopped by drawee, whereas payment cannot be stopped in Banker's Cheque.
7. A Cheque can be made payable either to a bearer or order. While, a Banker's Cheque is payable always to the order of a certain person.
8. In Cheque, drawer and payee are different person. In Banker's Cheque, both parties are same i.e. bank.
In view of the above, the Commission finds various inconsistencies on the part of both the parties i.e., firstly, the Appellant has defaulted in submitting a valid RTI Application fee, despite two reminders from the Respondent. Without having submitted the relevant fee, which is a pre-requisite condition for Page 6 of 8 CIC/SORLY/A/2019/104695 registering/replying to the RTI Application, the Commission is not in a position to direct the Respondent in whatsoever manner. Secondly, the Respondent has advised/provided four different options to the Appellant, through which he can obtain the information from any means. It seems that the Respondent has rather treated the instant RTI Application as a quiz forum, wherein he is providing options to the Appellant, wherein he can choose any one out of the four. The Commission counsels the Respondent that in future, they shall ensure that the information will be provided to the applicants or denied under a specific clause of the RTI Act. They shall not adopt any cross-routes, which is not within the purview of the RTI Act.
With the above observations, the instant Second 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: 04.03.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 7 of 8 CIC/SORLY/A/2019/104695 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Southern Railway, General Manager's Office, Right to Information Cell, Park Town, Chennai- 600003
2. The Central Public Information Officer, /Dy General Manager, Southern Railway, General Manager's Office, Right to Information Cell, Park Town, Chennai- 600003
3. Shri Jacob Varghese Page 8 of 8