Central Information Commission
Sudershan Vashishtha vs Railway Board on 24 July, 2017
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
लब बि डंग (पो ट ऑ फस केपास)
Club Building (Near Post Office)
ओ ड जेन यू कपस , नई !द ल -110067
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/AB/A/2016/000961
In the matter of:
Sudershan Vashishtha
P N 34, Balaji Vihar - 35,
Post - Sewapura, Near New Transport Nagar,
Sikar Road,
Jaipur - 303805. ...Appellant
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
Member Secretary
Railway Recruitment Board,
Ajmer, 2010, Nehru Marg,
Ambedkar Circle,
Ajmer - 305028. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 22.01.2016
CPIO reply : 23.02.2016
First Appeal : 16.03.2016
FAA Order : 11.04.2016
Second Appeal : 09.06.2016
Date of hearing : 19.07.2017
Facts:
The appellant sought information on 5 points and inspection in his RTI application dated 22.01.2016 regarding recruitment examination for the post of SSE dated 21.12.14; marks scored by him, cut off marks, certified copy of his answer sheet, copy of the answer key, details regarding formula for normalisation of marks, inspection of his OMR sheet. The CPIO replied on 23.02.2016. The appellant filed first appeal on 16.03.2016. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal on 11.04.2016 by allowing inspection to the appellant. The appellant filed second appeal before this Commission on 09.06.2016. Grounds for Second Appeal 1 The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : PIO, Shri R.S. Parihar, Member Secretary
During the hearing the respondent PIO submitted that they had provided the first reply on 23.02.2016. Aggrieved with this reply, the appellant went in for first appeal on 16.03.2016 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal vide its order dated 11.04.2016. The respondent PIO further submitted that final reply was provided on 13.07.2017.
The appellant was not present to plead his case.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that proper reply was neither provided by the respondent CPIO on 23.02.2016 nor by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 11.04.2016. The reply provided on 13.07.2017 was however just and proper but sent late i.e. by almost one and half years against the stipulated time period of 30 days u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act.
The then respondent CPIO is issued warning that full and final reply to an RTI application should be provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said RTI application.
The final reply is found to be just and proper but sent late and moreover as the appellant was not there to contest his case, interference of the Commission is not called for.
With the above warning, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 2