In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001533
Date of Hearing : August 16, 2011
Date of Decision : August 16, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri S.S.Negi
C/o S.S.Power Solution
7, Shivalik Enclave
Near I.T.C. Gate No.2
Saharanpur 247 001
The Applicant was heard through audio.
Respondents
The Public Information Officer
Rail vikas Nigam Limited
1st Floor, August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri H.C.S.Rautela, PIO & JGM
Shri Bhagwan Singh, Secretary to GM/P&A
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001533
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Request dt.25.2.11 with the PIO, RVNL seeking the names of the selected
candidates who had appeared in the interview conducted especially for ex serviceman on 27.9.10.
He added that one Shri P.K.Mishra, Asst. Manager (HR) had promised to declare the result within
one month but the same has not been done. The PIO replied on 4.3.11 stating that IPO is being
returned since it is drawn in the name of wrong payee. The Applicant then sent the IPO as directed
by the PIO vide his letter dt.10.3.11. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.22.4.11 with
the Appellate Authority and on still not receiving any reply, filed a second appeal dt.12.6.11 before
CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that the said interview was held on 24.9.10.
However, no one was selected since none of the candidates had met the qualification requirements
and hence no list had been prepared. According to the Appellant this information however, has so far
not been furnished to the Appellant since the Appellant had already been told at the time of appearing
for the interview that whenever the result is announced the same will be put up on the website.
When queried by the Commission as to why reply was not sent to the Appellant despite receiving the
RTI fees through correct IPO on 10.3.11, the Respondent submitted that the deemed PIO, Shri
Satyan Pillai (JGM(P&A) to whom the RTI application was forwarded to on 3.5.11, had failed to
respond to the RTI Application on time.
3. The Commission after hearing the submission by the Respondents directs the PIO to inform the
latest position with respect to the outcome of the interview to the Appellant by 16.9.11 and the
Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 23.9.11.
4. The Commission also directs the PIO to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon
him for obstructing the supply of information to the Appellant by not transferring the RTI Application
within the stipulated period of 5 days as stipulated under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. He is directed
to submit his written response to the Commission by 23.9.11.
5. The Commission further directs the deemed PIO, Shri Satyan Pillai to show cause as to why
action should not be taken against him u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act for the delay in transferring the RTI
application.. He may submit his written response to the Commission by 23.9.11.
6. The PIO is directed to serve a copy of this Order to Shri Satyan Pillai.
7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri S.S.Negi
C/o S.S.Power Solution
7, Shivalik Enclave
Near I.T.C. Gate No.2
Saharanpur 247 001
2. The Public Information Officer
Rail vikas Nigam Limited
1st Floor, August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
Rail vikas Nigam Limited
1st Floor, August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving
(1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission’s decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she
considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what
information has not been provided.