O R D E R

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 22.04.2019 seeking information on the following five points:

“allahabad division ke medical depart ke eye sergion ya specialist se sambandhit kuchh jankari janana chahta hu please is division me present eye doctor ke dwara mujhe santust jankari dene ki kripa kre jo is prakar hai

1 sirf senile cataract insane ko kab hota hai aur ye stationary awastha me rahta hai ya progressive rahta hai agar progressive hai to kab se kab tak progressive rahta hai aur iska vision par kya prabhav padta hai

2 sirf sutural cataract insan ko kab hota hai aur ye stationary awastha me rahta hai ya progressive rahta hai agar progressive hai to kab se kab tak progressive rahta hai aur iska vision par kya prabhav padta hai

3 sirf blue dot cataract insan ko kab hota hai aur ye stationary awastha me rahta hai ya progressive rahta hai agar progressive hai to kab se kab tak progressive rahta hai aur iska vision par kya prabhav padta hai

4 sirf punctuate cataract insan ko kab hota hai aur ye stationary awastha me rahta hai ya progressive rahta hai agar progressive hai to kab se kab tak progressive rahta hai aur iska vision par kya prabhav padta hai

5 kisi ke medical ke dauran fundus test me koi problem nikalti hai aur us par 3 doctor ka board baithaya jata hai to kya ye 3 doctor kisi bhi prakar ke D.M.O. hote hai ya fir Eye specialist D.M.O hote hai kyu ki kisi bhi dusre prakar ke D.M.O. Fundus test nahi kar sakte hai”

[Queries reproduced verbatim]

The Addl. Chief Medical Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad vide letter dated 16.05.2019, informed the Appellant as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2019, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available record.

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:

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 representative of the Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent.

Shri Rakesh Nigam submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is a debatable topic and there is no particular definition or interpretation is available for the queries posed by the Appellant. He further submitted that such queries cannot be replied under RTI Act because the answers to the same are available in various text books pertaining to the ophthalmology.

The representative of the Appellant interjected to state that he had also filed a similar RTI Application before the concerned CPIO, AIIMS, who had provided a satisfactory reply. Upon queried by the Commission to explain the larger public interest in seeking such generic information from different public authorities, the representative of the Appellant clarified that the reason for the seeking the averred information from different public authority is because he was given different statements from different doctors (ophthalmologist). In order to have second opinion, he is filing RTI Applications.

A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Addl. Chief Medical Superintendent, North Central Railway, Prayagraj vide letter dated

19.07.2021, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:

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 Respondent has provided adequate reply to the Appellant. The Commission admonishes the Appellant and the representative of the Appellant for wasting the precious time and resources of the Commission as well as the Respondent public authority in filing such fr