Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ajeet Kumar Mahto vs South Central Railway (Secunderabad) on 10 May, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                       के न्द्रीयसच
                                                  ू नाआयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                     बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SCRLS/A/2021/110126 -UM

Mr. Ajeet Kumar Mahto

                                                                            ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                            VERSUS
                                              बनाम



CPIO,
South Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager
Guntakal Division -522601



                                                                            प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing       :             09.05.2022
Date of Decision      :             10.05.2022

Date of RTI application                                                   21.10.2020
CPIO's response                                                           Not on record
Date of the First Appeal                                                  02.12.2020
First Appellate Authority's response                                      Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                      05.03.2021

                                           ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 03 points, as under:-

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA.The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr J Pramod ADME/CMW Guntakal, Present through VC The appellant remained absent during the hearing. Inspite of several efforts made by the Commission he could not be connected. The Respondent submitted that the case pertains to the injury that his brother suffered during the duty hours. He said that a suitable reply has already been given to the Appellant stating that his case cannot be considered under the Workman Compensation Act and the same has been decide after the due consultation with the designated doctor.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and on the perusal of the documents on record, the Commission observes that since there is no formal reply given by the Respondent on record, therefore the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish a point wise ,complete and suitable reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 25 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 10.05.2022 Page 3 of 3