Central Information Commission
M V Ramana vs South Central Railway (Secunderabad) on 14 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SCRLS/A/2024/101758
M V Ramana .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway
Manager, South Central Railway,
Railway Station Road,
Prabhat Nagar, Guntakal - 515801 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025
Date of Decision : 14.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.10.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 23.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 20.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"I request you to furnish the attested copies of the following information under RTI Act, 2005, regarding the permissions and other details, regarding the Rail Under Bridge Gate No.165:
1. Copies of designs of Road Under Bridge (RUB) near gate No. 165 towards Kurnool.Page 1 of 5
2. Estimation copies the above RUB.
3. All correspondence led with your higher authorities regarding the above RUB.
4. Copies of total Estimate accorded to the above RUB.
5. Copies of sanction accorded to the above RUB.
6. Copies of paper publication inviting Tender.
7. Copies of the agreement between the highest bidder and the Railways.
8. Copy of the Topography plan of the RUB-165.
9. Copies of Sketch showing the distance between RUB (Gate-165) and existing ROB(Gate-166).
10. Copies of detailed reports showing why the construction RUB (165) has stopped."
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.11.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
4. The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri C.H. Paparao, APIO-cum-Assistant Divisional Executive Engineer, attended the hearing through VC.
5. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
6. The Respondent submitted that the first reply qua the instant RTI Application was given to the Appellant vide letter dated 29.11.2023. However, upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, a revised and updated reply has also been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 07.05.2025, stating as under:
"Reference 1 above, the Hon'ble Central Information Commission's Notice dated 25.04.2025 received in this office on 05.05.2025 to attend for hearing on 08.05.2025 at 11.50AM, is submitted in the following:
1. GAD of RUB enclosed.
2. Estimate copy enclosed.
3. All correspondence copies enclosed.
4. Estimate copy enclosed.
5. Sanction accorded enclosed.Page 2 of 5
6. Copies of tender notice enclosed.
7. Copies of the agreement between the highest bidder and the Railways(LOA enclosed).
8. Copy of the Topography plan of the RUB-165 enclosed.
9. Copies of Sketch showing the distance between RUB (Gate-165) and existing ROB(Gate-166) has been closed.
10. Copies of detailed reports showing why the construction RUB (165) has stopped are enclosed.
The work sanctioned for construction of RUB of RCC Box of size 2x4.x3.60m in lieu of Le No.165 in SC-DHNE section for which collector consent also available and the same has been closed due to delay in shifting of municipal drains and in considering the request of rising of RCC box height from 3.6 to 4.5m which is not possible because the RCC boxes were already casted and there would be financial implications which was out of scope of rising the box height. At present, there is no sanctioned work available for elimination of LC gate 165. It was planned to eliminate this LC during the doubling work of SC-DHNE section which is mentioned in the detailed report.
In view of the facts dated above, it is humbly requested to the Hon'ble Central information Commission may please be close the case."
7. The Appellant interjected and apprised the Bench of the fact that he has not received any reply from the Respondent. He further provided his email address i.e. <mvrdhone[at]gmail[dot]com>, to the Respondent.
8. A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 05.05.2025, stating as under:
"I request you to furnish the attested copies of the following information under RTI Act, 2005. regarding the permissions and other details, regarding the Rail Under Bridge Near Gate No.165:
1. Copies of designs of Road Under Bridge (RUB) near gale No. 165 towards Kurnool.
2. Estimation copies the above RUB.
3. All correspondence led with your higher authorities regarding the above RUB.
4. Copies of total Estimate accorded to the above RUB.
5. Copies of sanction accorded to the above RUB
6. Copies of paper publication inviting Tender.
7. Copies of the agreement between the highest bidder and the Railways.
8. Copy of the Topography plan of the RUB-165
9. Copies of Sketch showing the distance between RUB (Gate-165) and existing ROB(Gate-166).
10. Copies of detailed reports showing why the construction RUB (165) has stopped.
Written Page 3 of 5 Arguments: The PIO 0/0 Asst, Divisional Manager, Guntakal. Andhra Pradesh, and FAA cum Divisional Railway Manger, Guntakla Division, Andra Pradesh the requested information belongs to public/ government property which Clearly lies public domain. I request you Sir, to take action u/s 20(1) of RTI act, and order them to furnish the information at an early date."
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, the Respondent has submitted a copy of written submission vide letter dated 07.05.2025, which is more elaborate and is treated as updated reply but a copy of the same has not been received by the Appellant. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to send a copy of the same along with relevant annexures to the Appellant, through email as well as through speed post, within two weeks of receipt of this order. However, before parting with the case, the Respondent is cautioned to act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act by observing the timelines scrupulously and punctually, in future.
10. The FAA to ensure compliance with the above direction.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Station Road, Prabhat Nagar, Guntakal - 515801 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)