Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

P Chatterjee vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 22 April, 2024

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No : CIC/MORLY/A/2023/125183

P CHATTERJEE                                          .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant



                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


PIO,
O/o Chief Works
Manager, Mechanical Work
Shop, Northeast Frontier
Railways, Dibrugarh - 786001.                         ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                     :    18-04-2024
Date of Decision                    :    19-04-2024

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    19-01-2023
CPIO replied on                     :    31-01-2023
First appeal filed on               :    18-02-2023
First Appellate Authority's order   :    Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    27-05-2023

Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19-01-2023 seeking the following information:
Page 1 of 4
"Please find enclosed copies of NFR P.O. Nos. 3017409102377 dt. 10-9-2018 & 30185012108547 dt. 31-8-2018, kindly inform the following under RTI Act -
1. For the consignee mentioned in the Purchase orders referred above different PL. Nos. has been mentioned for same item. Kindly inform the difference between the items procured.
2. Please provide certified copies of authority letter and file notings to open the PL. Nos. 30321311 and 3064N001.
3. Kindly inform whether opening of multiple PL. Nos. for same item is permitted.
4. NFR is procuring Set of SLPR/HPPA Brake gear Bushes as per RDSO Drawing No. SK-81039 (Item nos. 2,3,7 & 11) through PL. No. 30327106 since 2015, copy of NFR tender no. DB221602 opened on 14-11-22 and 30221001A opened on 15-9-22 is enclosed for ready reference. Kindly inform the reason for procuring single SLPR bush hos as per ICF Drg. No. T-3-2-640, Alt. j/8, Item no. 15 which is equivalent to Bush no. 7 of RDSO, Drg. no. SK-81039.
5. Kindly inform whether bushes procured are used for replacement of Brake Gear Bush no. 7 as per RDSO Drg. No. SK-81039 damaged prior to POH. If yes, please inform the percentage of Bush No. 7 found damaged prior to POH.
6. Please find enclosed RDSO letter no. MC/Bogie/BG//Bushes dt. 14-7-2015 and refer the Minutes of Meeting held in 2017 & 2018 (at Guwahati) of CME conference, any bush found damaged prior to POH / Warranty period are to be called under Warranty Replacement. Kindly inform any claim made since 14-7- 2015 for Warranty Replacement and if yes, please provide copies.
7. Kindly provide the details of SLPR item no. 15 procured since 2015-16 to-till date by operating through Pl. Nos. 30321311 and 3064N001. Please be informed that as per RTI Act 2005 documents / information as old as 30 years are to be provided.
8. Please inform stock of bushes held for procurement of Dush no. 15 through Pl. No. 3064N001.
Kindly provide certified copies of the documents requested."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 31-01-2023 stating as under:

Page 2 of 4
"1. The PO copies that are attached are two purchase orders, one is procured as non-stock and the other as stock item. In both the cases, the drawings are different. The items received at Dibrugarh mechanical unit under the POs have different dimensions and specifications, as per the drawings mentioned in the POs.
2. For initiation of a stock item, there is a pre-defined process in which it is initiated by the consignee, is forwarded to the concerned stores department and finally gets approved at zonal headquarter; for non-stock, similar demand is initiated by the consignee and is forwarded to the concerned stores department. As such no notings are available on record with this establishment.
3. Multiple PL numbers for the same item do not exist.
4. The drawings mentioned- ICF Drg no. T-3-2-640, Alt J/8 is an alternate drawing of RDSO Drg no. SK-81039, the dimensions and specifications mentioned in both the drawings vary. ICF Drg no. T-3-2-640, Alt J/8 and RDSO Drg no. SK-81039 differ in details. Both the drawings may be similar, but are not the same.
5. The item mentioned is must change during POH and is replaced accordingly.
6. The item mentioned is must change during POH. Damage and warranty claim prior to POH for this item is, if any, is dealt with by the divisions.
7. Details mentioned in PO copies attached.
8. The stock of items against PL no 3064N001 in this establishment is nil."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18-02-2023. 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: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Bhaskar Chowdhary, Deputy CMM and CPIO and Ms. Deeksha Chowdhary, attended the hearing through VC.
Page 3 of 4
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance.
The Respondent submitted that an adequate and point-wise reply based on available records has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 31-01- 2023. The Commission interjected and asked the Respondent whether the First Appeal has been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority, he submitted that First Appeal has been adjudicated on 24-08-2023.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that a sufficient reply has been provided by the Respondent vide letters dated 31-01-2023 and 24-08-2023 and the Commission upholds the same. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing to contest his case. Hence, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)