Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kamal Kumar Das vs Ministry Of Railways on 25 October, 2016

              CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
                Bhikaji Cama Place, NEW DELHI-110 066
                            TEL: 011-26717355

                                 Complaint No. CIC/VS/C/2015/000055

Complainant:                    Shri Kamal Kumar Das,
                                R/o PO-Sundaridia,
                                Kelayahati,
                                Distt. Barpeta-781314,
                                Assam.

Respondent:                     Central Public Information Officer,
                                Ministry of Railway,
                                RTI Cell,
                                Rail Bhawan,
                                New Delhi-110001.


Date of Hearing:                20.10.2016

Date of Decision:               20.10.2016

                              ORDER

RTI application:

1. The complainant filed RTI application dated 22.8.2014 seeking copy of survey report for the survey work conducted in connection with the alternative railway route connecting Barpeta, Sarthebari, Hajo, Sualkuchi wherein an expenditure of Rs. 69 lac has been incurred in the year 2010.

the information as to whether action has been taken after completion of the survey work. The complainant also seeks information as to whether the work is started and completed as per budget allocation; the complainant in his RTI application has stated that there has been a proposal for an amount of Rs.300.67 crores for construction of the second railway bridge of Saraighat over the river Brahmaputra and that information may please be furnished in respect of present status of the proposal; present status of Kokraijhar, Pathsala, Rangia connecting Bhutan route may please be furnished, etc. The complainant filed first appeal dated 22.10.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA).

2. The response of CPIO and FAA is not on record. The complainant filed a complaint dated 12.1.2015 with the Commission.

Hearing:

3. The complainant and the respondent both did not participate in the hearing.

Discussion/ observation:

4. It would not be appropriate to decide the matter in absence of both the parties Decision:

5. Respondent is directed to show cause why action should not be taken against the respondent for trying to deny information by not attending the hearing.

6. The matter is adjourned for hearing and a separate hearing notice will be issued to the parties.

A copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.

(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar