Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14620 of 2019 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- Central Information Commission And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Pandey,Rishi Kesh Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Kumar Rai,Rajnish Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26th September, 2018 passed by the respondent No.1- Central Information Commission closing the proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005 which is reproduced hereunder:-
"Compliance order The order of the Commission dated 12.04.2018 was issued in respect of the second appeal (memo) dated 23.01.2017. The main para of the order reads as follows:-
"The present respondent CPIO, Divisional Engineer (Line), Jhansi is directed to submit an affidavit indicating the date of destruction/ weeding out of the said records along with a copy of the order of the competent authority authorising such destruction/ weeding out within 10 days of the receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within the same time period."
The appellant vide letter dated 04.06.2018 submitted a non compliance petition stating that the respondent authority had failed to comply with the order of the Commission.
The respondent vide letter dated 18.06.2018 informed the Commission that the order dated 12.04.2018 had been complied by them.
On perusal of the copy of said letter, it was noted by the Commission that the order of the Commission dated 12.04.2018 directing them to file an affidavit was duly complied with. The non compliance petition is accordingly closed."
3. It is clear from the record that an affidavit was filed by the 5th respondent before the Central Information Commission to the effect that the records were not available in respect of which the information were sought after 15 years, for the records being weeded out and even there was no order available on record by which such records were weeded out. Paragraph 1 and 2 of the affidavit of 5th respondent has been filed before the Central Information Commission is reproduced hereunder:-
^^1- ;g fd vihykFkhZ }kjk vius ewy vkosnu fnukad 22-08-2016 esa ekaxh x;h lwpuk ds laca/k esa bl dk;kZy; esa miyC/k fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj ekaxh x;h lwpuk yxHkx 15 o"kZ iqjkuh gS rFkk orZeku esa fjdkMZ miyC/k ugha gSA 2- ;g fd bl fjdkMZ dks u"V djus dk l{ke vf/kdkjh dk vkns'ki= Hkh dk;kZy; esa miyC/k ugha gSA**
4. This Court had initially directed for instructions in the matter on 26th April, 2019 but since the instructions could not be obtained, the concerned officer was directed to appear in person before this Court.
5. Sri Saurabh Jain, who is holding the position of Divisional Engineer (Line), North Central Railway, Jhansi is also a Public Information Officer. North Central Railway, Jhansi is present today and has informed to the Court that under the Rules the records are weeded out on completion of a period of 10 years and since the records are not available, necessary information could not be given to the petitioner.
6. The fact of the case is that the information that is required by the petitioner relates to the maintenance of list of muster roll employee of the year 2000. The daily wage employees are normally issued identity card for rendering service on day to day basis and the entry is made on the muster roll on their putting attendance of their work and they are, accordingly, paid. They are neither regular employees nor, otherwise member of the employment so as to maintain their records as per the rules of the Department concerned. However learned counsel for the petitioner has put emphasis asserting that the information can be obtained at any point of time and there is no limitation prescribed referring to Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
7. However, the factual position remains that there are no informations available with the Department on account of disposal of the relevant records and as I have already held hereinabove that the petitioner was not a member of service of the department if the records have been weeded out as per the rules, the stand of such person was right that he is not able to furnish the requisite information.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any error much less legal and substantial one to interfere with the order impugned.
9. The application for exemption from appearance of the concerned officer is also allowed and he is discharged from personal appearance in the case.
10. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Atmesh