Copy of evidences in certain case nos. & cross examination of 17 witnesses who appeared in the Railway Claims Tribunal - Appellant: orders have not been implemented - CIC: response of PIO is cryptic; enable inspection of relevant files
Copy of evidences in certain case nos. & cross examination of 17 witnesses who appeared in the Railway Claims Tribunal - FAA: matter is under clarification from the competent authority and the appellant would be informed after getting a suitable reply on the issue - Appellant: orders have not been implemented & the amount sanctioned has not been paid full to the genuine claimants - Respondent: denial u/s 8(1)(b), 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; - CIC: response of PIO is cryptic; enable inspection of the relevant files
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 2-4-2012 requesting for a copy of evidence in case nos. mentioned in the RTI application.
2. The CPIO responded on 30-4-2012. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 25-5-2012. The FAA responded on 22-6-2012 and informed the appellant that the matter was under clarification from the competent authority and the appellant would be informed after getting a suitable reply on the issue. The appellant approached the Commission on 25-8-2012 in a second appeal.
3. I heard both the parties through videoconferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 2-4-2012 and stated that he requested for a copy of the evidence and cross examination of 17 witnesses who appeared in the Railway Claims Tribunal in connection with different claims against accidents, death, damage and short circuit. The appellant stated that against the claims, the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. The appellant further stated that the orders given in those files which have awarded compensation have not been implemented in the manner in which they should be implemented.
5. The appellant stated that the amount sanctioned has not been paid full to the genuine claimants. The appellant stated that there is a fraud in distribution of compensation. The appellant stated that the respondent has refused to provide any information and was concealing the facts of the case, and that no records had been made available to the appellant. The appellant stated that being the President of the Mazdoor Sangh Union, he has the right to seek this information.
6. The respondent stated that the CPIO responded on 30-4-2012 and denied the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(b)(e) and (h) of the RTI Act. In so far as item no. (ii) was concerned, the CPIO stated that names of the railway empanelled advocates were not available with them. The respondent stated that in so far as providing a copy of evidence and cross examination is concerned, this is provided only to the parties and their advocates who appeared before the Tribunal.
7. The response of the CPIO is on record. The response is cryptic. While some sections of the RTI Act have been cited but there is no elaboration. There is lack of any elaboration, why information is being denied. It will be appropriate to allow the inspection of the relevant files in the public interest.
8. The respondent is directed to enable inspection of the relevant documents by the appellant within 30 days of this order. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Santosh Kumar Mangaraj v. Registrar Railway Claims Tribunal in Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2012/002914/VS/05983