2021 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5849
के᭠ᮤीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबागंगनाथ मागᭅ , मुिनरका Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नईᳰद᭨ली , New Delhi – 110067 ि᳇तीय अपील संया/ Second Appeal No. CIC/CRAIL/A/2019/130853
In the matter of: Brijesh Jagdish Singh … अपीलकताᭅ /Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, /Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai Division, DRM’s Office, CST Mumbai Relevant dates emerging from the appeal: … ᮧितवादीगण /Respondent R TI Application filed on : 15.11.2018 CPIO replied on : Not on Record First Appeal filed on : 20.12.2018 First Appellate Authority order : 29.03.2019 Second Appeal Received on : 28.06.2019 Date of Hearing : 17.06.2021
The following were present: Appellant: Shri Brijesh Jagdish Singh participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone.
Respondent : Shri Lal Bhadur Yadac, ACM, Central Railway participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone.
O R D E R
Information sought: The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 15.11.2018 seeking information as under:
“Entire set of documents along with form, acknowledgement of receipt by the Department, submitted on behalf of "M/s. Car Shine" intender no. BB/C/289/CO/P&P/05/SITES/TDB 2018 for Pay and Park contract at Thane (West), and verification report along with experience certificate received from Nagar Nigam, Allahabad.”
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated
29.03.2019, informed as under:
“In continuation to this office letter of even No dated 27.02.2019, information pertaining to M/s Car Shine Tender at Thane (W) was sought; as the-consent from one partner was awaited hence the information was not provided.
Commercial Department vide ACM (TC) CSMT letter dated 22.03.2019 has furnished the information and copy of the same is enclosed.”
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 Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI Application. He stated that the desired information has not been provided by the Respondent instead the same has been denied under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 10.12.2018. He further stated that all the desired documents have been provided in reply to the First Appeal but not the verification report and experience certificate as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that an information containing upto 76 pages have been provided to the Appellant. He further submitted that the averred documents i.e., relevant verification report and experience certificate shall be sent to the Appellant’s email address upon the conclusion of the hearing.
The Commission orally directed accordingly.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Gaurav Jha, CPIO & Sr. DCM, vide letter dated 03.06.2021, wherein he has informed the Commission regarding the reply provided to the Appellant on 10.12.2018 as well as the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 27.02.2019 in which the Appellant was categorically informed/advised as under:
“M/s Car Shine is partnership of two partners as the declaration given in documents, the consent to provide the information has been asked from both the partners, as such reply from one partner is awaited. Hence no information can be provided at this stage.”
In addition, the Commission has been apprised with the fact that based on the reply received from ADRM & Appellate Authority, Shri Mahesh Singh, Partner of M/s. Car Shine vide their letter dated 18.03.2018 advised that he is giving consent to provide information sought by the applicant. Accordingly the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.03.2019, a copy of tender form and verification report of experience certificate from Nagar Nigam, Allahabad was provided to the Appellant.
Decision : Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that despite an appropriate reply has been provided by the Respondent alongwith relevant documents, a copy of verification report and experience certificate have not been received by the Appellant till date. Subsequently, the Commission has received a letter from the Respondent after the hearing got concluded, wherein it has been apprised with the fact that the experience certificate submitted by M/s. Carshine and ve