Central Information Commission
Ramendra Kishore Prasad vs South East Central Railway on 8 November, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SECRL/A/2023/134503
Ramendra Kishore Prasad .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Principal
Commercial manager, South East
Central Railway,New GM
Building, Bilaspur - 495004 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.10.2024
Date of Decision : 08.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 20.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 25.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.08.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.04.2023 seeking the following information:
"Please furnish certified copy of all documents pertaining to award of contract agreement No. C/SECR/BSP/HQ/258 THINCLIENT/AMC/2022, Dated: 17/11/2022 and It's cancelation and debarment of the contactor for two years. Both (Agreement & debarment) signed by Dy.CCM(PS) of Commercial Department, Bilaspur (H.Q.)"Page 1 of 5
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.04.2023 stating as under:
"In reference to the above, this is to inform you that, the file pertains to AMC 258 No. Thin Client (Agree. No. C/SECR/BSP/HQ/258 Thin Client/AMC/2022 Dtd. 17.11.2022 has been seized by Vigilance Department for investigation. (vide seizure memo no. SECR/V/E&S/2023/01 Dtd. 13.01.2023. Therefore this office is unable to provide you desired documents."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.05.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Kishore Nikhare, CPIO-cum-Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, attended the hearing through VC.
At the outset, the Appellant alleged that the reply provided by the CPIO was not given within stipulated timeframe as per the provisions of RTI Act and the same was backdated reply. He added that now he is not interested to pursue the instant case further as the information sought has outlived its utility.
The Respondent submitted that the averred file containing the relevant information was seized by Vigilance Department for investigation vide seizure memo dated 13.01.2023 and the same has been informed to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.04.2023. He added that the averred file has been received back in their office from the vigilance department on 17.09.2024 and now the relevant information can be provided to the Appellant. With respect to the allegation made by the Appellant that the initial reply was backdated, he denied the same and apprised the bench of the fact that the reply was sent by their e-office on 20.04.2023 and no malice is there.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 16.10.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 2 of 5
"1, That the Appellant Ramendra Kishore Prasad in the capacity of a citizen of India sought information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Public Information Officer & DGM (G), General Manager's Office, Southeast Central Railways, Bilaspur (C.G.) on 07-04-2023.
2. That since no reply was received from the PIO within a month of the application, the Appellant made an appeal against the inaction of the concerned PIO of SECR under Sec. 19 of RTI Act 2005 before the Appellate Authority & CCO, First Floor, D- Block, G.M. Building, SECR, Bilaspur on 25-05-2023.
3. That the concerned Appellate Authority through his letter dated 29-05- 2023 sent a copy of reply dated 20-04-2023 by the PIO of SECR addressed to the Appellant, which was never received by the Appellant. The said reply did not carry any letter no. and to the best of the belief of the Appellant it was not dispatched to the Appellant.
4. That therefore, the Appellant sent a letter dated 16-06-2023 to the Appellate Authority, SECR, Bilaspur stating that this letter of PIO, SECR, Bilaspur was not received by him and raising a question that it was not sent to him at all, since the said letter did not bear any letter number, which does not happen in the offices of the Indian Railways. However, no action was taken by the first Appellate Authority nor any reply was given to the Appellant. Hence, this Appeal.
PRAYER In the above context this is prayed that your authority may be pleased:
(i) To get enquired whether the reply dated 20-04-2023 was actually posted/ sent to the Appellant,
(ii) To get enquired whether PIO could forward the application of the Appellant to their Vigilence department,
(iii) To get enquired whether e- copy of files are maintained in the offices of SECR and only hard copy is seized by the Vigilence department, from which the information could be made available to the Appellant.
(iv) To get the information sought by the Appellant made available to him.
(v) To take action deemed fit for making the concerned authorities more serious in respect of providing informations under the provisions of RTI Act 2005."
A written submission has been received from Shri Kishore Nikhare, CPIO-cum- Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, vide letter dated 22.10.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"Compliance of RTI Appeal of Sri Ramendra Kishor Prasad
1. Initial RTI Application (Dated: 07.04.2023):
The RTI application was submitted by Sri Ramendra Kishor Prasad, seeking a certified copy of documents related to the award of the contract agreement for the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) of Thin Client. The application was received by the concerned office.
2. First Reply to the Applicant (Dated: 20.04.2023):
The applicant was informed that the requested documents could not be provided because the relevant file had been seized by the Vigilance Department.Page 3 of 5
3. First Appeal by the Applicant (Dated: 25.05.2023):
Unsatisfied with the response, the applicant submitted an appeal to the First Appellate Authority, claiming that no response was provided to his RTI application dated 07.04.2023.
4. Second Reply to the Applicant (Dated: 29.05.2023):
Although the applicant was previously replied to on 20.04.2023, the office reiterated the same response, stating that the documents could not be provided as the file remained scized by the Vigilance Department.
5. Further Representation by the Applicant (Dated: 16.06.2023):
The applicant again approached the First Appellate Authority, claiming that he did not receive the reply dated 20.04.2023. He argued that the RTI should have been forwarded to the Vigilance Department or provided the contact details of the relevant Public Information Officer (PIO).
6. Address of CPIO Provided to Applicant (Dated: 22.06.2023):
In response to the letter dated 16.06.2023, the office provided the applicant with the address of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) & Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer (Dy.CVO), South East Central Railway (SECR), Bilaspur, where the relevant file was seized.
7. Appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC) (Dated: 07.08.2023):
The applicant escalated the matter to the CIC in New Delhi. The CIC subsequently issued a notice of hearing for the appeal, scheduled for 23.10.2023 at 12:00 PM.
8. Current Status of the File (As of 17.09.2024):
The file related to the case, which had been seized by the Vigilance Department, was returned to the office on 17.09.2024, following a request for the submission of a reply concerning an arbitration case."
After conclusion of the hearing, additional copy of written submission has been received from Shri Kishore Nikhare, CPIO-cum-Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, vide letter dated 22.10.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"1. The hearing before Hon'ble CIC on 23.10.2024, w.r.t. RTI Appeal of Sri Ramendra Kishor Prasad, Bilaspur, was attended by undersigned as a Respondent.
2. Hon'ble CIC has been informed that the file related to the case, which had been seized by the Vigilance Department, was returned to the office on 17.09.2024, following a request for the submission of a reply concerning an arbitration case.
3. The Appellant has submitted before Hon'ble CIC that reply for his RTI application dated 07.04.2023 was not provided to him within 30 days of submission of RTI application, whereas the same was enclosed with reply of his Appeal Dtd. 25.05.2023 before First Appellate Authority & CCO/SECR/BSP and alleged that the RTI reply Dtd. 20.04.2023 seems to be signed in back date after his appeal Dtd.25.05.2023.
4. The undersigned has categorically denied the allegation of the Appellant before Hon'ble CIC that RTI reply Dtd. 20.04.2023 was signed in back date as it was signed digitally and submitted that the reply Dtd. 20.04.2023 was dispatched to the Page 4 of 5 Appellant on 24.04.2023 after signing of the reply by CPIO & Dy. CCM(PS)/SECR/BSP. In this regard, an undelivered letter Dtd.22.06.2023, against reply of appeal Dtd.16.06.2023, dispatched to the applicant through Speed Post, has been shown to Appellant before Hon'ble CIC.
5. The Appellant has accepted that Railway was sent the RTI reply timely, which might be not delivered by the Postal Department.
6. Hon'ble CIC has asked the Appellant, whether he want the reply or not, the Appellant submitted that he does not required the reply at present."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that since the averred file containing the relevant information was seized by Vigilance Department for investigation vide seizure memo dated 13.01.2023, the relevant information could not be provided to the Appellant. The Respondent during the hearing has informed the bench that the averred file has been received back in their office from the vigilance department on 17.09.2024 and now they are ready to provide the relevant information but the Appellant during the arguments has submitted that he is not interested to pursue the instant case further as the information sought has outlived its utility. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)