Central Information Commission
*****
No.CIC/OK/A/2008/01106
Dated: 18 November 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri D.M. Solanki
240, Shree Nagar
Empress Mill Housing Colony
Nagpur, Nagpur, 440015
Name of the Public Authority : South East Central Railway
Background:
Shri D.M. Solanki of Nagpur filed an RTI-application with the Public
Information Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, on 24 January 2008,
seeking information/documents relating to the expenses incurred by the
Railways towards the arbitration cases from the date 5 March 2004 to the date
of award on 25 August 2007.
2. The PIO vide his letter dated 31 January 2008 replied to the RTI-
application. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed an
appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 28 March 2008 who vide his letter
dated 18 June 2008 replied to it. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the
Central Information Commission with a Second Appeal on 21 July 2008.
3. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the
matter on 12 November 2008.
4. Shri Pradeep Kumar, Sr. DCM & PIO, Shri P.K. Kshatriya, Sr. Divisional
Engineer and Shri D.K. Krishna Kumar, Ch. OS, represented the Respondents.
5. The Appellant, Shri D.M. Solanki, was neither present nor send any
representative for the hearing.
Decision:
6. In the absence of the Appellant, the Commission heard the Respondents
and noted that the Appellant had asked for information under different heads
regarding the expenses incurred by the Railway authorities in arbitration cases
over a period of nearly three years. The heads under which the information
asked for included salaries of different officials engaged in these cases, the TA
bills of such employees, fees paid to Railways Advocates and cost on affidavits
typing, Xeroxing and the cost of arbitration, etc. The Respondents replied in
the first instance that the information was being collected and would be sent in
due course to the Appellant. However, according to the Respondents, the case
was discussed within the Department and a consensus seems to have emerged
that the information asked for by the Appellant was covered by Section 8(1)(j)
of the RTI-Act. Accordingly, the information was denied to him. Subsequently,
the PIO opined that the issue was not covered under Section 8(1)(j) and that the
information should be supplied. Accordingly, the complete information was
supplied to the Appellant vide the Respondent’s letter of 25 August 2008.
During the hearing, the Respondents explained that although the final reply was
sent on this date, the Appellant was kept in touch through interims replies
which contained part information.
7. In his Second Appeal, the Appellant has wanted to know as to how Section
8(1)(j) was applicable in this case and was ordered by whom. In fact, the
Commission agrees with this doubt of the Appellant and is at a loss to
understand as to how Section 8(1)(j) was made applicable regarding this
information, all of which was in the public domain. In fact, the case is basically
one of public interest and should have been treated as such. It is obvious that
the Respondents tried to sweep the sensitive information under the carpet and
had it not been for the vigilant PIO, the case would be dragged on longer. The
Commission, therefore, directs as follows:
(i) Now that the information has been supplied to the Appellant, he is
directed to write to the Respondents in case he feels that the
information supplied is neither incorrect nor incomplete. The
Appellant may, therefore, specify the lacunae that he finds in the
Respondent’s reply. The Respondents will get 20 working days to
provide any further clarification/information desired by the Applicant.
The case, however, will be treated as finally closed in case there is no
communication from the Appellant by 5 December 2008.
(ii) The Commission joins the Appellant in his concern over refusal of the
information supplied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI-Act The
Appellant is directed to go to the Respondent’s office and inspect the
file in which the case has been considered and take photocopies of
the same free of cost. He is free to approach the Commission with
another complaint about the denial of the information as well as the
delay, on receipt of which the Commission will take further action.
This may be done by 19 December 2008.
8. The Commission ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri D.M. Solanki, 240, Shree Nagar, Empress Mill Housing Colony, Nagpur,
Nagpur, 440015
2. The Public Information Officer, South East Central Railway, Divisional
Railway Manager’s Office, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
3. The Appellate Authority, South East Central Railway, Divisional Railway
Manager’s Office, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC