Appellant had been involved in supply of blast to railways - He sought information pertaining to refund of earnest money and related issues - CIC: Inform why has the security deposit has not been refunded and when will the security deposit be refunded
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 19-10-2012 seeking information pertaining to refund of earnest money and deducted SD amount from the running bills and related issues. The CPIO responded on 27-11-2012. The appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 27-12-2012. The FAA responded on 24-1-2013. The appellant filed a second appeal with the Commission on 6-5-2013.
2. Both parties were heard through videoconferencing.
3. The appellant referred to the RTI application of 19-10-2012 and stated that he had been doing work for the respondent organization referred to in his RTI application pertaining to supply of blast. The appellant said that this work was completed in the year 2004 but he is yet to be refunded the security deposit which was in the form of FDRs. The appellant said that the respondent organization has been evasive about the points that he had raised in his RTI application.
4. During the course of the hearing, the appellant wanted information on the following:
(a) why has the security deposit, which should have been refunded to him, not been refunded; and
(b) when will the security deposit be refunded.
5. The respondent stated that this is a matter which has to be done by the Kota Division and that a letter dated 27-11-2012 has already been sent to the appellant in which the copies of the bills and statement including the accounts has been provided. The respondent stated that he is not aware why the refund of the security deposit has not been given.
6. The appellant stated that the respondent has been deliberately trying to conceal the information and not providing the information because of malafide.
7. The appellant stated that the work had been done 10 years ago and the fact is that the security deposit has not been refunded and this is a matter of considerable gravity and should be enquired into. Decision:
8. The respondent is directed to:
(a) provide information to the appellant on the points in para 4 above;
(b) show cause why action should not be taken against the respondent for contravening the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act; and
(c) comply with the above within 30 days of this order.
Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Ranjan Kumar Goel v. North Central Railway in Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001588/VS/08592