Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Digen Kr. Chakraborty vs Indian Railways on 20 May, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. Digen Kr. Chakraborty vs Indian Railways on 20 May, 2009
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
                          Opposite Ber Sarai,
                          New Delhi -110067
                         Tel: + 91 11 26161796

                                           Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000633/3328
                                                  Appeal No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000633

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Digen Kr. Chakraborty
Qtrs. No. 11A, Street No.2C
Post – Chittaranjan,
Distt-Burdwan-713331.

Respondent                          :      Mr.A.P.Dey
                                           Dy.CPO(W) & CPIO
                                           Indian Railways
                                           Chittaranjan Locomotive Works
                                           Chittaranjan.

RTI application filed on            :      09/07/2008
PIO replied                         :      08/08/2008
First appeal filed on               :      15/09/2008
First Appellate Authority order     :      22/10/2008
Second Appeal filed on              :      18/03/2009

Information sought:-

The Appellant had asked following information regarding the material drawn
from CPH Store for the contractor’s work:-

Particulars of required information:

The material used by the contractors and those materials were withdrawn by
SE/Con from CPH store in various requisitions.

1.(a) What was the contracts of those works.

(b) What was the work order in those works?

(c) The name who signed in those gate pass to take out those materials.

(d) The name who prepared those gate pass.

(e) All the numbers of Gate pass and date.

(f) Completion certificate of those particular tender cases.

(g) Xerox copy of received of release materials.

(h) Xerox copy of received of those materials by the contractors.

2.For which purpose the issued materials are purchased.

PIO’s reply
PIO had replied that “it is to inform you as follows:-

1. Para 1 (c) – Sh.B.N.Biswas, the then SE/Con signed in the gate pass to take out
the materials.

2. Para 1(d) – The Gate Pass was prepared by Sh.B.N.Biswas, the then SE/Con.

3. However for getting the Xerox copies of Contract and Schedule of work of the
Tender cases, Number and date of Gate Pass and the completion certificate of the
Tender Case asked by you at your application, you are requested to pay a sum of
Rs.82/- representing the cost of documents as supplied by Dy.CEE/M.

4. You can deposit in the form of cash in the case counter of Chittaranjan
Locomotive Works, payable to FA&CAO/CLW/Chittaranjan and submit the cash
receipt to the undersigned. Otherwise you can pay the amount in the form of
Demand Draft or Bankers Cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to
FA&CAO/CLW/Chittaranjan and deposit the same to the undersigned.

5. It may please be noted that the intervening period between the dispatch of this
intimation letter and payment of fee shall be excluded for the purpose of
calculating the prescribed period as per sub section 3(a) of the Section 7 of the
RTI Act, 2005.”

The First Appellate Authority ordered.

The First Appellate Authority ordered “It was noted that the information asked by
the applicant in his complaint regarding non-compliance of his original application were
of non-confidential nature and should have been supplied by APIO/Electrical. Therefore,
APIO/Electrical is instructed to go through the non-compliance complaint of the
applicant meticulously and supply relevant information to CPIO, or give specific reason
for non-compliance within 15 days so that the applicant may be replied accordingly.”

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Mr. A.P.Dey, PIO
The PIO states that the information was provided by Dy.CEE Maintenance and APIO
Electric within the time to the appellant after charging requisite fee. However during the
appeal it is found that some documents also required and PIO again supplied the
documents free of cost on 07/11/2008 when the order of the First Appellate Authority
was complied. It appears that the PIO’s contention is correct.

Decision:

The Appeal is dismissed.

The information has been provided to the appellant.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20th May, 2009

(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)