Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001781
Dated February 3, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri S.K.Kulshrestha
Name of the Public Authority : North Central Railway, Agra
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.2.6.09 with the PIO, NCR, Allahabad
requesting for information against 4 points related to inspection of agricultural
products under PFA Act, 1954 during the period Jan.2007 to May 2009. The PIO
replied on 8.6.09 informing the Applicant that the RTI application was received by him
on 8.6.09 and that the information cannot be provided since the IPO was in the name
of the wrong payee. The Applicant then submitted the IPO with name of correct payee
vide his letter dt.23.6.09. Shri S.K.Singh, PIO transferred the RTI application to PIO,
NCR, Agra on 26.6.09 with a request to provide information directly to the Applicant.
The PIO, NCR, Agra replied on 3.7.09 providing some information . Not satisfied with
the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.20.7.09 with the Appellate Authority
requesting for additional information against 7 points. The Appellate Authority replied
on 16.9.09 enclosing the information received from the concerned officer. Still not
satisfied, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.23.10.09 before CIC stating that the
information is misleading and commenting on the information provided against eac of
the points while reiterating his request for information against points 3 to 7.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for February 3, 2010.
3. Shri R.K.Goyal, PIO, Shri J.P.Upadhya, Deemed PIO and Shri S.M.Sharma, CHI
represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was heard through audio conferencing.
Decision
5. Shri Goyal submitted that although the Appellant in his first appeal had sought
additional information, the same was provided by the Appellate Authority vide his
letter dt.16.9.09, after the Applicant was requested to pay an amount of Rs. 34/-
towards photocopying charges on 30.7.09. He further stated that in the information
provided against point 1, there is a typographical error as instead of typing ” Section
20(1) of the PFA Act”, the typist has typed “Section 13(2)”. He further stated
that information sought against points 4, 5 and 6 relates to a single issue and that the
same has been provided by the Appellate Authority in his letter dt.16.9.09. The
Appellant who was heard over the phone wanted to know the rule under which the
samples which on inspection were found to be not complying with the norms, were
not referred to the Court for prosecution. Shri Goyal informed the Appellant that as
per section 20(1) of the PFA Act, 1954, no prosecution for an offence u/s 14 or 14(a)
shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of a person from authorized
in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Govt. or State Govt. He added
that as per this Section, the Chief Medical Director is empowered to use his
discretionary powers to decide whether the matter should be referred to the Court or
to take departmental action instead. The Appellant, however, expressed his
dissatisfaction with the information provided.
6 The Commission after hearing both sides directs the Respondent to confirm to the
Appellant in writing about the discretionary powers held by the Chief Medical Director
by end February, 2010 and advises the Appellant to approach an appropriate forum for
redressal of his grievance.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri S.K.Kulshrestha
Advocate
2176 Dampier Nagar
Mathura 281 001
2. The PIO
North Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Agra Division
Agra
3. The Appellate Authority
North Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Agra Division
Agra
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC