CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000525/3201
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000525
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ram Chandra Sahu,
License of Plot No. RL-11 at TOG,
Market, S.E. Rly., Kharagpur,
Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Kumar,
A.D.R.M. & PIO,
South Eastern Railway,
Kharagpur,
RTI application filed on : 01/10/2008
PIO replied : 21/10/2008
First appeal filed on : 10/11/2008
First Appellate Authority order not replied.
Second Appeal filed on : 09/02/2009
The Appellant had asked following information for
S. No. Information sought. The PIO replied.
1. When the allotment made in the year 1976 as As per RTI Act, 2005
per Master Plan for the benefit of the Rly. information beyond 20
employees as well as the benefit of the Public years in not
for various traders. What the terms and furnishable.
condition? Whether one time Agreement with
the license under the Article 14, 16, 19 (I g) and
300 (A) or periodical Agreement is bond? As
per Engineering code, Para 1024, 1008 and
1013. Please clarify the same as per law
applicable.
2. Is there any Railway Board Circular or order
As per available office
regarding Non- execution/break of agreement/
records no such Rly.
stay order in general order in general for Bd’s Circular exists.
renewal of Ty. License agreement, if the court
However, before
case is pendency kindly clarifies the same as
dealing of such cases
per law? legal & competent
authority’s opinion to
be obtained.
3. If the Rly. Administration has failed to Based on survey report
execute/Renewal of license Agreement for cases of original
more than twenty years, since 1995 to till date, licensees proposed for
who will be the responsible for the act of renewal of licensee &
negligence? The Rly. Administration or the execution of
license, Please clarify? agreements wherein
Railway plot no. RL-11
also exists.
4. As per Indian easement license Act, 1882, Since your license
Chapter-V Section-47 (l), the land of easement against Rly. No. RL-11
and license Act, wherein it is stipulated that, already expired long
sectin-47 I also repeated while clarifying in back, hence licensee
section 47 (l) and 47 (2) and clause (9) and does not have nay right
(11). This is also supported as per Indian over the land until and
registration Act 1877 (3 of 1877) Indian unless it is renewed.
limitation Act of 1908 under section 23. The However renewal of
dominant uses i.e. the S.E. Rly. Authority the licenses of Railway
loosing the time of right of easement. Also land not connected the
according to sec. 38 unless the condition Railway working can
stipulated in Para 34 are fulfilled the easement be done at GM’s level
cannot be put into operation as per land of with finance
easement Act, 1882 by the dominant owner. concurrence, which are
Therefore the Railway forfeits the title of under process.
dominant owner. Also your attention is drawn
to Article-14, 21, 19 (l) (g) (ii) (l) of
constitution of India. Being a bonafied license
of the Railway Administration. So that the
Railway Administration failed to maintain the
policy of dominant owner and forfeits the title
of rights and so that the licensee became the
land lord as per title right, is there is any rights
of the Railway Administration to issue the
notice or demand for license fee? Please clarify
as per law?
5. Any other particular that may be in-connection No other particulars at
to the issue in question. this moment.
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Absent
Queries 3,4 and 5 of the RTI application do not seek information as defined
under Section 2 (f) of the RTI act. Query 2 has been answered. However in
response to query 1 the PIO has erred in stating information beyond 20 years is
not to be furnished under RTI act. The position is contrary to this. After 20
years only three of the ten exemption clauses of the RTI act are applicable. Thus
if information is available it has to given, and the Act broadens the disclosable
information by allowing only three of the ten exemptions to be applicable after
twenty years.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
Information on query 1 will be provided by the PIO to the appellant before 30
May 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
12 May 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)