Central Information Commission
Mrkamal Uddin Dafadar vs Ministry Of Railways on 13 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.6, Club Building ,Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi110067, Tel No.01126182597,26182598
Complaint No.CIC/VS/C/2014/000165/BJ
Complainant : Shri Kamal Uddin Dafadar
Vill. Jhuruli
PostGarakupi
P.S.Basirhat
Distt.North 24 Paraganas,
West Bengal 743456
Respondent : CPIO & Dy. GM(G)
Coordination/ PGCum
Eastern Railway, Fairle Place
17th Netaji Subhash Road
Kolkata700001
Date of Hearing : 13/06/2016
Date of Decision : 13/06/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 07.10.2013
CPIO's response 19.11.2013
Date of filing the First appeal 19.12.2013
First Appellate Authority's response 30.01.2014
Date of filing second appeal before the 24.03.2014
Commission
O R D E R
FACTS:
The complainant, vide his RTI application dated 07.10.2013, had sought information on 06 points pertaining to the outcome of his appeal dated 01/05/2013 addressed to CMDER(Kolkata); date of receipt and copy of CMS for letter bearing no.209M/14; time period for disposal of appeal/review against medical board's opinion and the reasons for delay in disposing the appellant's appeal etc. Page 1 of 3 The CPIO vide letter dated 19/11/2013 gave pointwise reply to the complainant. Dissatisfied with the reply, the complainant preferred a first appeal before FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 30.01.2014 directed the CPIO to provide the complainant a copy of the letter bearing no.MD.173/O/RTIA/2013/108 dated 30.01.2014. The complainant alleged that information on points 01, 02 and 06 had been deliberately suppressed by the PIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Kamal Uddin Dafadar (ConstableRPF) (M:9732371448) through VC; Respondent: Dr. P. Kuili, Chief Health Director Eastern Railway (M:9002020503) and Dr. Ashok Kumar Chakarbotry, Sr. DMO(Eye)(M:9163340519) through VC;
The complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint. The respondent stated that the original application was not traceable in their office and subsequently they could get the desired complaint through fax made available by the CMS. A reply was also provided to the complainant on 30/01/2014. During discussions at the time of hearing, the complainant mentioned that he was under great stress when he filed the complaint and that he wishes to close the matter now. He was offered by the Commission to inspect the records, if he so desired, but he expressed his inability to do so and insisted on closing the matter.
DECISION:
Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is clear that no further action is required in the matter. The complainant had also requested for closure of this complaint.
The complaint stands dismissed.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Page 2 of 3 Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3