Central Information Commission
Irshad Ali vs North Eastern Railway (Gorakhpur) on 28 August, 2021
CIC/NERLG/A/2019/139300
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NERLG/A/2019/139300
In the matter of:
Irshad Ali ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... तवाद गण /Respondent
Sr. EDP Manager,
North Eastern Railway,
O/o The Sr. Edp Manager,
DivisionalOffice, Lucknow Division,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 04.03.2019
CPIO replied on : 08.03.2019
First Appeal filed on : 04.04.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 25.04.2019
Second Appeal Received on : 14.08.2019
Date of Hearing : 04.08.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Irshad Ali participated in the hearing upon being contacted on his
telephone.
Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar, EDPM participated in the hearing upon being
contacted on his telephone.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/NERLG/A/2019/139300
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 04.03.2019 seeking information as under:Page 2 of 6
CIC/NERLG/A/2019/139300 The Sr. EDP Manager, North Eastern Railway & Nodal PIO vide letter dated 08.03.2019, informed to the Appellant as under:
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.04.2019, informed as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.Page 3 of 6
CIC/NERLG/A/2019/139300 Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the instant hearing is being scheduled through audio conference after informing both the parties.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI Application and also explained the background/intent for seeking the averred information in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had addressed the IPO to the PIO, which is incorrect. Accordingly, a reply was provided to the Appellant to file an appropriate IPO payable to the Accounts Officer. He further submitted that instead of rectifying the mistake, the Appellant resorted to file the First Appeal and even the First Appellate Authority also advised the Appellant to file an appropriate IPO. He added that the Appellant without paying attention to the advice, has resorted to file the instant Second Appeal.
The Appellant interjected to state that he has sent a fresh IPO to the Respondent. Upon queried by the Commission as to why the same has not been submitted to the Commission after receiving the hearing notice, he could not provide a cogent reply.
In response to the interjection of the Appellant, the Respondent averred that if the Appellant has factually submitted a fresh/revised IPO, an advice may be given to the Appellant to send a copy of the same to them and accordingly, relevant information can be provided to the Appellant. Upon queried by the Commission as to whether the instant RTI Application has been registered by them, the Respondent replied in negative.Page 4 of 6
CIC/NERLG/A/2019/139300 A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Umesh Pratap Singh, PIO and Sr. Electronic Data Processing Manager vide letter dated 27.07.2021, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Appellant has not fulfilled the mandatory criteria i.e., remitting the requisite fee to the appropriate authority, resulting in non-registration of the instant RTI Application. Subsequently, the Appellant has merely argued upon the fact that a fresh/revised IPO has been submitted to the Respondent and that no substantial proof has been submitted by him till date.Page 5 of 6
CIC/NERLG/A/2019/139300 Moreover, the instant RTI Application has also not been registered by the Respondent, the Commission deems it fit to consider the instant Second Appeal as INFRUCTUOUS.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands dismissed.
Amita Pandove (अ मता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त) दनांक / Date: 27.08.2021 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ADRM, North Eastern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager's Office Divisional Office, Lucknow Division, Lucknow,Uttar Pradesh
2. The Central Public Information Officer, Sr. EDP Manager, North Eastern Railway, O/o The Sr. Edp Manager, Divisional Office, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
3. Shri Irshad Ali Page 6 of 6