Central Information Commission
N K Pahuja vs East Central Railway (Hajipur) on 21 June, 2021
CIC/ECRHJ/A/2019/129376
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/ECRHJ/A/2019/129376
In the matter of:
N. K. Pahuja ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
East Central Railway, O/o The DRM
Divisional Office, Samastipur Division,
Samastipur, Bihar
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 06.03.2019
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First Appeal filed on : 08.04.2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Second Appeal Received on : 19.06.2019
Date of Hearing : 15.06.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri R. N Prasad (Representative of the Appellant) participated in the
hearing on being contacted on his telephone.
Respondent: Shri A K Dubey, DEN, East Central Railway participated in the
hearing on being contacted on his telephone.
Page 1 of 7
CIC/ECRHJ/A/2019/129376
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 06.03.2019 seeking information on the following four points:
"The brief history of the case is as under:-
1. The acceptance Letter No. W/362/SPJ/Stone Dust/Restoration/ TC dt. 03.08.2004 read with Letter No. 362/SP/Stone Dust/ Restoration/TC dt. 06.09.2004 was issued to the undersigned for the work supplying Quarry dust from any station of E.Rly/ E.C. Rly for restoration of breach of SPJ Div. by the Sr. DEN/ Co- ord/SPJ.
2. Some dispute arose between the parties i.e. between Sr. DEN/ Co-ord/SPJ and M/s Pahuja Stone Traders, Bari Bazar, Munger.
3. To resolve and adjudicate upon the issues of disputes and differences, the GM/HJP appointed Arbitral Tribunal Consisting of Mr. L.K. Mansukhani, IRSSE/SAG-SCR, SC as Presiding Arbitrator and Mr. TA Khan, Dy CMM/G, E. Rly, Fairle Place/ Kolkata and Mr. Rohit Parmar, DF (CA) Rly Board, New Delhi as Joint Arbitrators.
4. The Arbitral Tribunal consisting of the above members after hearing both Parties concluded the arbitral proceeding with the direction to the Respondent, Union of India represented by the Sr. DEN/Co-Ord/SPJ to pay to the claimant M/s Pahuja Stone Traders, Bari Bazar, Munger a sum of Rs. 6,02,687/= (Rs. Six Lakh Two Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Seven) only as detailed in the order dt. 21.02.2018 towards full and final settlement of all the claims within 90 days and if the respondent fails to pay the awarded amount within 90 days, an interest @10% per annum will be payable to the claimant till the date of the payment.
5. But the respondent deviated from the order dt. 21.02.2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and made payment of only Rs. 6,02,687/- through RTGS on 11.02.2019 after expiry of nearly one year without any interest at his own whim and caprice. This speaks of whimsical and co-ersive attitude on the part of the respondent Rly.
6. In connection with the above, kindly supply the following information [A] Why the interest has not been paid?
Page 2 of 7CIC/ECRHJ/A/2019/129376 [B] Who is responsible for not paying the interest? [C] Why the case file remained pending for nearly one year? [D] By which date the interest will be paid to the claimant?"
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2019, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
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 representative of the Appellant stated that desired information has not been provided by the Respondent. He further stated that a letter dated 04.06.2021 has been sent by the Respondent stating that the delay has been caused due to administrative reasons.
The Respondent submitted that an appropriate reply has been provided by their office letters dated 31.05.2019 & 10.06.2019. In response, the representative of the Appellant stated that no reply has been received.
At the instance of the Commission, the Respondent replied that the above said letters have been sent by registered post.Page 3 of 7
CIC/ECRHJ/A/2019/129376 A correspondence letter between the Appellant and Shri R N Jha, Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination) & APIO, East Central Railway, Samastipur dated 04.06.2021, is taken on record, wherein a point-wise revised reply along with additional information has been sent to the Appellant.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.06.2021, wherein he has reiterated the contents of his RTI Application along with the background of the case. He further stated that neither the CPIO nor the FAA has given him the desired information.
Another written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant vide letter dated 09.06.2021, wherein he has informed the Commission that the Respondent vide their office letter dated 04.06.2021 has admitted that there was delay in supply of information, so he should be penalized.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that vide letter dated 04.06.2021, Respondent has provided an adequate explanation in response to the queries raised by the appellant in the instant RTI application. Furthermore, a satisfactory interim reply had also been provided vide letters dated 31.05.2019 & 10.06.2019, however the Appellant has not been in receipt of the said letters. In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to resend the above said letters to the Appellant by speed post only within 15 days from the date of issue of this order and a compliance report be sent to the Commission within a week thereafter. The Commission further observes that as per Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005, the concerned public authority is supposed to send the instant RTI Application Page 4 of 7 CIC/ECRHJ/A/2019/129376 within 5 days from the date of receipt of the application to the concerned department to which the subject matter is pertained to, however in the instant matter, the concerned Assistant Personnel Officer-III, East Central Railway has transferred the instant RTI Application on 26.04.2019. Hence, the stipulated time- frame has not been adhered to while transferring the RTI Application to the concerned department. Therefore, the Commission admonished the concerned Assistant Personnel Officer-III, East Central Railway for not transferring the instant RTI Application within stipulated time-frame and is hereby warned to remain careful in future.
Notwithstanding above, the Commission observes that the Appellant is questioning administrative decisions of the Respondent public authority which is beyond the ambit of the RTI Act.
The Commission also observes that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnished replies to the hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reason for non-compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. The Commission, further, notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. AdityaBandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) has held as under:
"35......... But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant..............."Page 5 of 7
CIC/ECRHJ/A/2019/129376 Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011 held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
The Commission also refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 OF 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 wherein it was held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
In view of the aforesaid decisions, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply, as per the available records, has already been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 21.06.2021 Page 6 of 7 CIC/ECRHJ/A/2019/129376 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ADRM, East Central Railway, O/o The Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, Samastipur Division, Samastipur, Bihar-848101
2. The Central Public Information Officer, /Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, O/0 The Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, Samastipur Division, Samastipur, Bihar-848101
3. Shri N. K. Pahuja Page 7 of 7