Central Information Commission
Varinder Kumar vs Northern Railway on 29 November, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NRAIL/A/2018/121867
Varinder Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
M/o Railways, Northern Railway,
Headquarter, Baroda House, New
Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13-11-2017 FA :17-02-2018 SA: 06-04-2018
CPIO : 08.11.2019 FAO : Not on record Hearing: 28-11-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Northern Railway, Headquarter, Baroda House, New Delhi seeking information as follows:-
"Copy of medical unfit report"
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information within a period of 30 days, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 17-02-2018 requesting that now the information should be provided to him. As the first appellate authority did not give him any reply, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before Page 1 of 4 the Commission on this ground and requested the Commission to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act. Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Varinder Kumar attended the hearing through video conferencing. Dr. Puneet Gupta, Dy CMD, Mr. Vinod Kumar, O.Supdt. and Mr. S.S. Rana, SPO/RRC participated in the hearing representing the respondent in person. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent provided him information with delay.
5. The respondent informed the Commission that they have sent reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 27.11.2017 along with a copy of medical unfit memo but posted inadvertently on wrong address instead on appellants address.
Now they have furnished the above mentioned reply to the appellant on correct address vide their letter dated 08.11.2019. The respondent further submitted that appellant application is more clarificatory in nature which CPIO is not obliged to answer.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and admission of delay by the officer present, observes that the respondent has provided information to the appellant with a delay of two years approximately, that too after receiving notice for hearing. The respondent did not deal with the RTI application carefully and sent information on wrong address. This shows serious lacuna on the part of the respondent by contravening the provisions of the RTI Act.
It is the duty of the CPIO to ensure timely reply in terms of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava,W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 held under:
"5...The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure Page 2 of 4 that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow"..
7. The Commission therefore imposes token penalty of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) on the then CPIO, who has failed to provide information to the appellant in time as per the provisions of RTI Act. The amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) shall be deducted by the Public Authority from their salary by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi and the demand draft should be forwarded to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email:
[email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. This demand draft of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) should reach the Commission by 15.01.2020.
8. The Commission further observes that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application are clarificatory in nature and the CPIO is not obliged to give reasons/clarification under the RTI Act in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा) Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक / Date 28-11-2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO, M/o Railways, DGM Law & Nodal CPIO, Northern Railway, RTI Cell, Headquarter, Baroda House, New Delhi - 110001 2 Mr. Varinder Kumar Page 4 of 4