ORDER

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 12.11.2018 seeking information pertaining to Railway NOC Application File No. BB/W/6561/NOC/CLA/ 1186/DB for proposed redevelopment of existing building known as Vinoba Bhave Nagar Godavari Adhyapak CHS Ltd. at CTS no. 922 (Part), Building No. 55, Vinoba Bave Nagar, Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 070. He specifically sought the following information:

1) Entire file along with all the papers, plans, documents, internal notesheets, letters, internal papers, etc. for the Railway NOC Application File No. BB/W/6561/NOC/CLA/1186/DB for proposed redevelopment of existing building known as Vinoba Bhave Nagar Godavari Adhyapak CHS Ltd. at CTS No. 922 (Part), Building No. 55, Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 070.

2) All Railway NOCs issued since 1950 till date for the existing building known as Vinoba Bhave Nagar Godavari Adhyapak CHS Ltd. of CTS No. 922 (Part), Building No. 55, Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 070.

3) All Railway NOCs issued since 1950 fill date for the entire CIS No. 922, 921, 921A Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 070.

4) All the papers, plans, documents, revenue records, internal papers, etc. to support the allegations of Divisional Railway Manager (Works) in its letter dated 30.08.2018 stating that, "part of the property falls in the railway land as per railways records."

5) All the papers, plans, documents, revenue records, internal papers, etc. to support the allegations of Dy. Chief Engineer (Gent) in its letter dated 17.10.2018 stating that, "the part of plot falls on which building has been constructed is falling on Railway land as per Railway's record."

6) All policies, circulars, etc. along with all amendments stating the entire process, rules, procedures, etc. to be followed by the authorities / officers of railways for granting the NOC for situations like the subject matter.

The CPIO vide letter dated 17.12.2018 provided point-wise information to the Appellant. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.12.2018.

The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.01.2019 upheld the CPIO’s reply.

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 in the hearing despite serving the hearing notice.

The Respondent submitted that available information has been provided to the Appellant on 17.12.2018. At the instance of the Commission, he explained that Rs. 48/- was sought from the Appellant as photocopying charges for information sought at point nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI Application. However, even before the Appellant remitted the aforesaid amount, relevant information was already 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 available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant. Since the Appellant has not participated in the hearing to buttress his case, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.