के቎ኚरीयसचू नाआयोग Central Information Commission बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नईनिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 ्षितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SCRLS/A/2022/145498 -UM Mr.DIVILI PRABHAKARA RAO ….अपीलकताा/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, M/o. RAILWAYS, SR. DPO & NODAL CPIO, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, RTI CELL, DRM'S OFFICE, PERSONNEL BRANCH, VIJAYWADA DIVISION, VIJAYWADA, DISTT-KRISHNA, A. P. – 520001 ..... ्ቚ्षतवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 01.09.2023 Date of Decision : 25.09.2023

O R D E R

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

1. Has your office been served with any Court Judgements regarding non-disclosure of certain information in relation to the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. Copies of judgements of courts of Law can be given.

3. Right to information Act can take photo and give Xerox.

4. DRM, ADRM, Sr. DPO, please give the addresses of all RTI PIOs regarding the branches etc.

The PIO vide letter dated 04.08.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.The FAA vide order dated 02.09.2022, furnished a reply to the Appellant and closed the Appeal.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Divili Prabhakara Rao attended the hearing, Respondent: Mr. B.S. Sudhakar, APO, attended the hearing.

The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought a copy of Court Judgements regarding non-disclosure of certain information in relation to the Right to Information Act, 2005.etc. He submitted that the reply which had been furnished is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. While deposing in the hearing, he stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hid information and requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide letter dated 04.08.2022, a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said.

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 30.08.2023 which is taken on record.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the CPIO, to offer an inspection to the appellant of the records for the information sought in the RTI application on any mutually convenient date and time and depute a person to assist the Appellant during the inspection and provide photocopies of the documents desired by the Appellant, free of cost. A letter intimating the Appellant regarding the inspection of records along with date and time should be sent 10 days before the scheduled date. The entire exercise should be completed within 30 days of the receipt of this order.

The Commission further advises the Respondent public authority to look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the extant guidelines, if necessary by calling the Appellant to their Office at a mutually convenient date and time to resolve the above said issue in a time bound manner, thus adhering to the law of natural justice.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर (Information Commissioner) (सचू ना आयु

Authenticated true copy (अ्षि्ቚमा्षणत एवं सत्या्षपत ्ቚ्षत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव)

(Dy. Registrar) (उप - पंजीयक)

011-26182598 ्षदनांक / Date: 25.09.2023