Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000129SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 22 July 2011
Date of decision : 22 July 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan,
C/o Citadel Enclave, Building No. D3,
Block No. 203, 2nd Floor,
B.T. Kawade Road,
Mundhwa, Pune - 411 036.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Information Commission
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Tarun Kumar, Joint Secretary
(ii) Shri M.C. Sharma, CPIO
(iii) Shri G. Subramanian
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Pune studio of the NIC while the Respondents were present in
our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought the photocopy of the notings made by the
Assistant Registrar of the CIC in a particular matter. Although the CPIO had
provided the said photocopy, the Appellant was not satisfied. He was later
shown the original file for inspection though. Even then, it appears, he was not
satisfied.
CIC/WB/A/2010/000129SM
4. During the hearing, the relevant records were shown to us. It transpires
that the main objection of the Appellant is not regarding the veracity of the file
noting already provided to him; his main grouse is about the apparent
misinterpretation of the direction of the IC concerned. From the contents of the
file notings supplied to the Appellant, it appears that although his case had
been heard and appropriate orders issued, he had represented that the hearing
was not complete. The Assistant Registrar had put up this matter before the IC
concerned, faithfully reproducing in his noting whatever the Appellant had
stated in his representation but also mentioning that the contents of the
representations were not comprehensible. We noted that the IC concerned had
given the following direction: “Please issue”. The Assistant Registrar had
interpreted the direction of the IC to mean his agreement with the observation
that the representation was not comprehensible. This is the crux of the problem.
5. The Appellant seems not to be satisfied with the information provided by
the CPIO of the public authority, in this case, the Western Railways. His
representation to the CIC basically was a complaint against noncompliance of
the CIC orders. He pleaded that all that he wanted was the right information
from the Western Railways which he was yet to get in spite of the orders of the
CIC. Appreciating his grievance in the matter, we think it would be appropriate
to list his representation received in the original case as a complaint against the
Western Railways and to invite the public authority to explain why the desired
information was not provided in full.
6. Therefore, we direct that this matter be brought to the notice of the IC
concerned dealing with the Railways and she may please consider this matter
as one of noncompliance and pass appropriate orders after giving a fair
CIC/WB/A/2010/000129SM
chance of hearing to both the parties.
7. The case is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2010/000129SM