Central Information Commission
Abubakkar Khan vs South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 17 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SERLK/A/2024/120575
Abubakkar Khan .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
C.P.I.O,
South Eastern Railway
O/o the Divisional Railway Manager (Engg.)
Kharagpur, West Midnapore,
West Bengal - 721 301 .... ितवादी/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16-02-2026
Date of Decision : 17-02-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04-02-2024
CPIO replied on : 03-04-2024
First appeal filed on : 16-04-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 23-05-2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13-06-2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04-02-2024 seeking the following information:
"The main reason behind preferring this application is that I have filed a WPA No.15087 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta against illegal construction of a G+7 high rise building near Mecheda Railway Station. I have come to know from the reliable source that an enquiry has been conducted on 14.08.2023 & 05.10.2023 by your Railway Authority regarding demarcation of the land of the railway authority and the CIC/SERLK/A/2024/120575 Page 1 of 6 private person and hence, I am seeking the following information in relation to the aforesaid matter through this application.
Information and /or copies which I am seeking for:-
a. Let me know whether any enquiry has been conducted on 14.08.2023 & 05.10.2023 by your Railway Authority regarding demarcation of the land of the railway authority and the private person near L.R. Plot No- 418 of Mouza-Rakshachak, J.L. No. - 293 under P.S .- Kolaghat in the district- Purba Medinipur (beside SMR Office & Railway Water Tank near Mecheda Railway Station) in the presence of the AEN (Assistant Engineer), Panskura, Howrah-Kharagpur Line, IW (Inspector of Works), Kolaghat, the Block Land & Land Reforms Kolaghat, the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Sahid Matangini or not. If yes, let the copies of the same be made available to me.
b. Let me know how much land of railway authority near L.R. Plot No- 418 of Mouza-Rakshachak, J.L. No. - 293 under P.S .- Kolaghat in the district- Purba Medinipur (beside SMR Office & Railway Water Tank near Mecheda Railway Station) has illegally been acquired by the disputed proposed G+7 High Rise of A.B. Constructive Developer held by Mr. Arun Bera & Mr. Barun Bera.
c. Let me know whether any action has been taken by your authority for removal of unauthorized construction from the land of railway authority beside the L.R. Plot No-418 of Mouza- Rakshachak, J.L. No. - 293 under P.S .- Kolaghat in the district-Purba Medinipur (beside SMR Office & Railway Water Tank near Mecheda Railway Station) or not. If yes, let the documents of such action may kindly be supplied to me.
d. Whether the copy of Map showing the plots of land of Railway Department around Mecheda Railway Station is available in your office or not. If yes, let the copies of the same be made available to me."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03-04-2024 stating as under:
"The queries is exempted from disclosure of information as per provision of Section 8(1)(b) of RTI Act 2005."CIC/SERLK/A/2024/120575 Page 2 of 6
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16-04-2024. The F.A.A provide the reply vide order dated 23-05-2024 which is observed as follows:
"The information has been defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005, which means in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contacts, reports, papers, samples, models data materials held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI act, 2005. Act does not cast obligation to answer quires, as in the case when the petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes such as Why, When, What, How and Whether.
As per Right to Information Act-2005, Decision of the Bench of Hon'ble Yashovardhan Azad, Information Commissioner, vide CIC/SS/A/2013/000838-YA dt. 28-05-2014 & Order by High Court of Bombay on dated 03-04-2008 in Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State (W.P.No. 419 of 2007), Public Authority is not bound to answer such interrogative queries those do not come under the ambit of RTI Act."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference along with his authorized representative Shri Sukhendu Mandal.
Respondent: Not Present.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 13.06.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Authorized representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, informed the Commission that now at the stage of Second Appeal, the Appellant has received requisite information. However, there is a substantial delay in providing complete information under the RTI Act.
7. Updated reply dated 03.02.2026 of the Respondent is taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
CIC/SERLK/A/2024/120575 Page 3 of 6"a. Joint Enquiry programme has been done on 14-08-2025 & 05-10- 2023 with BL & LRO, Panskura-II and BL/LRO/Tamluk- 11. The Report of Joint Enquiry is attached herewith (Annexure-1) b. As per Railway Authority (Map uploaded in TMS), Approx 42.80 Sqm area has been found encroached by M/s A.Β. Construction Developer. The said party denied the matter of encroachment.
c. The SSE/Works/KIG has written letters to BL & LRO, Kolaghat & BL & LRO, Tamluk on 29-08-2024, to solve the matters but no response have been received from State Authority. Copy of letter is attached herewith (Annexure- II) d. You may visit at SSE/Works/KIG Office from 08:30 to 17:00 hrs on weekdays to find the map."
Decision:
8. The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise of the instant appeal was non-receipt of desired information as per his RTI application. The Commission observes that the PIO in its initial response has denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the FAA while disposing first appeal of the Appellant has invoked Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds that such contradictory stands taken by the CPIO and the FAA reflect lack of due application of mind and absence of a coherent justification for denial of information. If the information was exempt under Section 8(1)(b), the question of it not falling within the ambit of Section 2(f) would not ordinarily arise. Conversely, if the request did not qualify as "information" under Section 2(f), recourse to an exemption provision under Section 8 would be redundant.
9. Such inconsistent reasoning on the part of the Public Authority not only defeats the spirit of transparency enshrined in the RTI Act but also causes avoidable confusion and prejudice to the Appellant. The Commission, therefore, expresses its concern over the casual and mechanical disposal of the RTI application and the First Appeal.
CIC/SERLK/A/2024/120575 Page 4 of 610. It is now at the stage of the Second Appeal, the Respondent has placed on record a revised reply in the form of written submissions before the Commission which in view of the Commission is an adequate response to the RTI application, wherein complete information has now been provided to the Appellant.
11. The said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as an updated reply to the instant RTI application, which the Respondent has shared with the Appellant.
12. The Commission takes serious note of the fact that there has been a substantial and unexplained delay in furnishing the information. The very objective of the RTI Act is to ensure time-bound access to information. Providing information only after the matter has reached the stage of Second Appeal defeats the spirit and mandate of the RTI Act.
13. Further, despite due notice of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. No written submissions explaining either the delay in providing information or the absence during the hearing have been placed on record. Such conduct reflects a casual and negligent approach towards the proceedings of the Commission and the statutory obligations cast upon the CPIO under the RTI Act.
14. The Commission, therefore, issues strict caution to the concerned CPIO for inordinate delay in furnishing the information and failure to appear before the Commission without any intimation or sufficient cause.
15. The Commission directs the FAA that a copy of this Decision be forwarded to the Controlling Authority of the concerned CPIO for taking note of the above lapses and to ensure that due diligence is exercised in future while dealing with RTI applications and Commission hearings.
16. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
17. The FAA is also directed to be cautious in future and ensure that first appeals of the applicants should be disposed of with proper application of mind.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
CIC/SERLK/A/2024/120575 Page 5 of 6Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 Date Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority, South Eastern Railway, O/o the Divisional Railway Manager (Engg.) Kharagpur, West Midnapore, West Bengal - 721 301 Abubakkar Khan CIC/SERLK/A/2024/120575 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)