O R D E R

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 20.12.2018 seeking information as under:

The CPIO vide letter dated 28.01.2019, transferred the instant RTI application u/s 6(3) to Dy. CE(PL/Const.), CAO (Const.), 6th Floor, New Annex Bldg., Mumbai CST and endorsed a copy of the same to the Appellant. Further, a letter dated 27.02.2019 endorsed by Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Dy. CE(C) PL/APIO(C) informed the Appellant that the information sought is not clear and accordingly their office is not in a position to furnish the relevant information. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.02.2019, upheld the CPIO’s reply dated 28.01.2019 and also enclosed a copy of this letter.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The Appellant did not participate despite being served the hearing notice.

The Respondent reiterated the contents of the written submissions dated

30.03.2021 and 01.04.2021.

A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Sanjay Tyagi, CPIO and Dy. Chief Engineer/C/PL, CSMT vide letter dated 30.03.2021, wherein he has reiterated the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Another written submission has been received by the Commission from the aforesaid individual vide letter dated 01.04.2021, wherein he has informed the Commission as under:

“The work of boundry wall mentioned in the RTI application by applicant has not been carried out by Construction Organization of C.Rly. It pertains to Open line of Mumbai Division. Hence it is requested to send the CIC Notice to CPIO/Sr.DEN(Co), C.Rly. Divisional Office, Mumbai, CSMT-400001 in this case.

Interim Decision:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the First Appellate Authority, without application of mind has upheld the CPIO’s reply dated 28.01.2019, which is merely a transfer of the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the concerned official. The Commission admonishes Shri V.A. Malgaonkar, the then First Appellate Authority and Sr. Divisional Railway Manager for treating the instant matter in a cavalier manner and displaying negligence towards the provisions of the RTI Act. In addition, the concerned CPIO vide reply dated 27.02.2019 has simply said that the information sought is not clear and the same cannot be deemed as a befitting reply under the provisions of the RTI Act.

In view of the aforesaid anomalies, the Commission deems it fit to adjourn the instant case to a later date.

The Registry of this Bench is directed to send fresh hearing notice to the concerned parties as well as to the CPIO/Sr. DEN(Co.), Central Railway, Divisional Office, Mumbai CSMT – 400001.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

The Appeal, hereby, stands adjourned.

Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव)

Information Commissioner (सचू ना आय(cid:7334)ु )

(cid:7408)दनांक / Date: 06.04.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ(cid:7079)मािणत स(cid:7004)यािपत (cid:7079)ित)

B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना)

Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)

011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)

AGM, Central Railway GM's Office, PI Cell(HQ), CSMT Mumbai -01

2. The Central Public Information Officer, Dy. CE(C) PL, Central Railway, CAO(C)'s Office, Railway, New Admin Office Bldg.

6Th Floor, D N Road, CSMT Mumbai -400 001 3. Shri Raju Dajiba Ingle Copy to:

Shri Raju Dajiba Ingle,