Central Information Commission
Nadeem Uddin vs North Central Railway on 9 February, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NCRAL/A/2023/101651
Nadeem Uddin .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DRM Office, Agra Division ,
North Central Railways,
Railway Station, 74E, Mall Rd,
Sultanpura, Agra Cantt,
Uttar Pradesh 282001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07-02-2024
Date of Decision : 08-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19-09-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 31-10-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21-12-2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"In connection with above please find enclosed herewith crossed IPO No. 56F/987639 dated 20-12-2021 address to Senior DFM/N.C. Rly Agra Cantt Agra for providing offline information and documents on the following points in the Public interest. because of non-availability of computer faculty.
1- Provide certified copies of at present available layout plans of Agra Cantt, Agra Fort, Raja Ki Mandi, Agra City and Mathura Stations.
2- Provide date of information for future development and layout plans/finalization date of Stations quoted at S.No. (1) above.
3- Provide Certified copy of layout plan of IIIrd line's provision over Agra Division."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.10.2022. The FAA's order is not on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Along with Advocate M. Y. Quershi present through video- conference.
Respondent: Represented by Shri Lal Bahadur, ADE Hqr. Present through video-conference.
Learned counsel for the Appellant stated that no reply and FAA's order has been provided to his client till date.2
The Respondent submitted that CPIO's reply vide letter dated 10.10.2022 and FAA's order dated 18.11.2022 has already been furnished to the Appellant via speed post. He agreed to resend a copy of the said reply with FAA's order to the Appellant.
Post hearing, the Respondent uploaded a copy of averred speed postal tracking receipt on the CIC's website and the same has been taken on record.
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the core contention of the Appellant in the instant case was non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO and FAA's order. To which, the Respondent submitted that CPIO's reply vide letter dated 10.10.2022 and FAA's order dated 18.11.2022 had already been furnished to the Appellant via speed post. The Commission finds no infirmity in the submissions of the Respondent as it was found to be as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Nonetheless, in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission directs the Respondent to resend a copy of their reply and FAA's order to the Appellant within one week after confirming the correct correspondence address from the Appellant. A copy of the same should be uploaded on the CIC's website through the link given in the hearing notice. FAA to ensure compliance of this direction.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 08-02-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date 3 4