Central Information Commission
*****
No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00198
Dated: 31 July 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan
C/o CITADEL Enclave Building No.D-3
Block No.203, 2nd Floor
B.T. Kawade Road, Mundhwa, Pune
Name of the Public Authority : Western Railway
Background:
Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan of Pune filed an RTI-application on 25 June
2007 with the Public Information Officer, Western Railway, seeking
information/documents relating to the Contract No. C-331/1/4 Vol.I dated
01.06.1999 of DRM, Mumbai Division.
2. The PIO vide his letter dated 30 July 2007 replied to the RTI-application.
Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed a first appeal on 2
August 2007 who vide his letter dated 28 September 2007 replied to his First
Appeal. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Central Information
Commission with a Second Appeal on 26 December 2007.
3. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the
matter on 23 July 2008.
4. Shri P.L. Kurian, Dy. CCM/G & PIO, Shri S. Lohani, Deputy General
Manager/G and Shri K.V. Desai, AMC(TC), represented the Respondents.
5. The Appellant, Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan, was present in person.
Decision:
6. The Commission heard both the sides in what is the sixth hearing in the
case. The case actually revolves around a Railway contract given to the
Appellant. According to the Respondents they had complied with the
Commission’s earlier Order and shown to the Appellant all the records and
documents relating to this contract and also provided him photocopies of the
documents that he wanted, a fact, which had been acknowledged by the
Appellant also. They produced before the Commission documents to this
effect.
7. In today’s hearing, however, the Appellant stated that while he had been
provided with the information and the files concerned, there was one
important Register concerning this case which had not been shown to him. The
Commission wondered why, when it had ordered that all the documents and
files about the case to be shown to the Appellant, this Register had not been
opened out for the Appellant’s inspection.
8. The Respondents submitted that this Register could not be provided at
the time the other records were shown because on a complaint of the
Appellant, these Registers had been requisitioned by the Vigilance Department.
According to them, these Registers had now been received back and could be
shown to the Appellant.
9. The Commission accordingly gives the Respondents a final opportunity to
show to the Appellant ALL RECORDS AND FILES AND REGISTERS relating to this
case. This may be done by 21 August 2008. In case the Respondents are not
able to provide any record or document to the Appellant, a valid reason for this
may be provided.
10. During the hearing, the Appellant pointed out that there was a
contradiction in the statements made on files and hence he alleged that the
information supplied to him was false. In case this is so, that is, if through the
information which has been disclosed to the Appellant, he is able to establish
the fact that the facts are contradictory to what has been recorded in the file,
he is advised to take up the matter with the concerned authorities in the
Department itself or with the Court.
11. The Commission ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan, C\o CITADEL Enclave Building No.D-3, Block
No.203 2nd Floor, B.T. Kawade Road, Mundhwa, Pune, 411036
2. The Public Information Officer, Western Railway, Headquarter Office,
Churchgate, Mumbai-400020
3. The Appellate Authority, Western Railway, Headquarter Office, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC