Central Information Commission
Santhosh Kumar T M vs South Western Railway on 13 April, 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/SWRLY/A/2021/700037-UM
Mr.SANTHOSH KUMAR T M
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/O Deputy Chief Engineer, North-II, Construction,
South Western Railway, No.18, millers road,
Bangalore Cantonment, Bangalore-560046
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.04.2022
Date of Decision : 13.04.2022
Date of RTI application 23.08.2020
CPIO's response 01.09.2020
Date of the First Appeal 15.10.2020
First Appellate Authority's response 11.11.2020
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:- Page 1 of 3
The CPIO vide letter dated 01.09.2020, forwarded the RTI application to the Dy. Chief Engineer/Gen1/Construction, Karnataka. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 11.11.2020, forwarded the First Appeal to the concerned.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr Santosh Kumar , Present through A/C Respondent: Mr I Prabhakaran , Deputy Chief Engineer , Mr Satya Narayana , Deputy Chief Engineer , Present through A/C Page 2 of 3 The appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted vide letter dated 23.08.2020 that the information furnished to him was vague and misleading. He stated that he sought information regarding details of land acquisition in meter gauge line, its conversion, construction and survey sketch in kumbradi coffee , Estate village Sakleshpur but had received a wring reply. The Respondent during the hearing submitted that the information sought was not available in their office being 50 years old and the same was informed to the Appellant vide letter dated 1.09.2020 . When queried he stated that the said information might be available elsewhere.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case, the submissions made by both the parties the Commission directs the respondent to try and search for the information in the concerned section of the railways and furnish it to the Appellant in an span of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order strictly in keeping with the objectives of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Law. But if the respondent is not able to furnish the information then he should file an affidavit before the commission with a copy to the appellant explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability of the information including their the record detention policy, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. In the case of the CPIO filing a wrong affidavit the Appellant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offence of perjury and contempt of the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 13.04.2022 Page 3 of 3