The appellant submitted a vague & ambiguous query; Later sought information for a specific period which was not a part of the RTI application - CIC: The appellant was advised to file another RTI Application for the specific information sought by him
Date of Decision : 20.12.2016
O R D E R
The appellant, vide his RTI application dated 27.05.2014, sought information on 35 points relating to earth work in bank / cutting formation including side drain, trolley refuges, toe wall and left over work between KM 437.00 to KM 454.00 and protection work of minor bridges 520 to 535 in connection with Ratlam MHOW (Phase-I) Guage Conversion on Ratlam – Khandwa Section of Western Railway during the April, 2013 to Feb, 2014 and matters related thereto. The CPIO, Dy. Chief Engineer (C), Indore Madhya Pradesh vide its response dated 16.07.2014 provided point wise response to the appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA. However, the order of the FAA, if any, is not available on the record of the Commission.
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present: Appellant: Mr. Deepak Uppal (M: 9871382910); Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal, Dy. Chief Engineer, WR, Ratlam (M:9752492250); Mr. P. S. Sen Gupta, Chief Public Information Inspector, WR, Mumbai (M:7709073945) through VC;
The appellant reiterated the contents of RTI application and stated that information on point nos. 25 & 28 was not provided despite depositing the photocopying charges on 23.07.2014. The respondent, Mumbai informed that the RTI application was transferred to Ratlam Division for appropriate action. The respondent at Ratlam Division explained that vide their letter dated 16.07.2014, pointwise reply to the RTI application was provided to the appellant and after receipt of the photocopying charges of Rs.1650/-, the documents were supplied to the appellant on 25.08.2014. Thereafter, on receipt of another letter from the appellant dated 05.05.2015, conveying non receipt of information, another set of documents was sent to the appellant on 30.05.2015. However, the appellant contested that information relating to point 25 & 28 had not been correctly supplied. On perusal of the RTI application it is noted that the appellant had himself submitted a vague and ambiguous query with regard to the above points which were replied by the respondent to the best of their abilities. The appellant subsequently, sought information for a specific period which was not a part of the RTI application. The appellant was advised that for specific information sought by him, he should file another RTI application.
Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that pointwise reply to the RTI queries had been replied by the respondent. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Citation: Mr. Deepak Uppal v. CPIO, Headquarters Office, Western Railway in Appeal No.:-CIC/VS/A/2014/003762/BJ