Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Aditya Sharma, Section Officer and PIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information/documents in respect of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Badwani:

1. Details of teachers (permanent and contractual) and their educational qualification.

2. List of teachers who can comfortably speak, write and read English.

3. List of teachers who teach in English in the classes.

4. And other related information.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant through his written submissions contested the reply and requested for his case to be decided on merits. The CPIO submitted that an apt reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 06.08.2018 and the first appeal was also disposed of vide FAA's order dated 31.08.2018.

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri Kamal Chandra Pandit, Assistant Manager, HR/Legal and CPIO's representative, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following documents:

1. No. of retired officers/employees working as outsource employee in marketing division of Patna, Kolkata, Bhuneshwar, Guwahati and closed mills of Orissa Cotton Mills, Saudpur Cotton Mills, Laxminarayan Cotton Mills, Associated Industries Assam, Bihar Cooperative Weavers Spining Mills, Mokama, Bengal Fine Spinning and Weaving Mills, Unit No. 2.

1

2. No. of retired officers/employees working as outsource employee in sub office Kolkatta, 7 Jawahar Lal Nehru Road and Aarti Cotton Mills, Dasnagar.

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri Kamal Chandra Pandit, Assistant Manager, HR/Legal and CPIO's representative, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following documents:

1. Details of salary/wages and extra payments paid to 4 security guards working at closed Bihar Cooperative Weavers Spinning Mill, Mokama for January 2016 to June 2018.

2. Copy of the salary slip of the salary/wages and extra payments paid to 4 security guards.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the information in respect of point (2) above.

1

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that information in respect of point no. 3(b) was not provided.

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: M S Balvir, Principal & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. A copy of the letter No. F-5(19)/NVS (PR)/IA(CA)Audit/3463 dated- 05/03/2018 along with all attached enclosures, all attested with office stamp.

2. A copy of the justification submitted to N.V.S Regional office, Pune, Maharashtra after receipt of letter dated 05/03/2018.

3. A copy of A.G Audit reports sent through N.V.S, R.O Pune or directly by the A.G Auditors after A.G audit or during A.G audit.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the complete information.

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Dr D K Modi, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the certified copies of detailed note-sheet against the following letters:

1. T-42/2008-NVS(pers)/DC-II/1518-19, dated 01.03.2018

2. T-42/2008-NVS(pers)/1956, dated 30.03.2017

3. F.No PF/S.K Thakur/PPL/NVS(PTR)/2017-18/1438-39, dated 12.05.2017

4. F.No PF/S.K Thakur/PPL/Admn/NVS(PTR)/2017-18/20468, dated 19/20.03.2017 1 Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided misleading information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that the desired information was not provided to him.

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: S J Annassery, Principal & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought photocopy or carbon copy or copy of any sort kept in office of Report dated 09.03.2018 Vide No. 31/JNV/2017-18/928 made to Collectorate, Idukki.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

1

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that till date no information has been provided to him and the CPIO may be penalized u/s 20 of the RTI Act.

The CPIO submitted that a reply was sent to the appellant on 28.07.2018, however the same was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks "address is wrong".

Appellant: Not present Respondent: S K Tyagi, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO, present in person.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Whether the Students can take admission in Class-VI in all Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya(JNV), all over India, after qualifying JNV Entrance Test-2018, who have passed Class-V from Govt. Unrecognized (having no valid Govt. Recognition) Private Elementary Schools all over India (Specially in the State of Odisha).

2. If no, then give detailed reasons & guidelines.

3. If yes, then also give detailed reasons & guidelines.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant was not present to plead his case despite service of valid hearing notice on 25.01.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED581042041IN.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Krunangaur, Section Officer & representative of the CPIO.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. List of all Physical Education Teachers (PET) (Female) in NVS including their respective displacement points (with detailed break-up of displacement points for transfer drive 2012 (and thereafter) irrespective of the actual status of their displacement(s).

2. Displacement and transfer details (along with reason(s) of transfer(s)/displacement(s), since 2012 till date, of all PET (Female) in NVS.

1

3. Transfer and displacement details (along with reason(s) of transfer(s)/displacement(s), since 2012 till date, of LEENA SINGH, PET (Female) in NVS.

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: R K Singh, Senior Manager Legal & PIO alongwith Mohit Kumar, Junior Manger & APIO and Akshay Pandey, Assistant manager(Vigilance), all present in person.

Information Sought:

A complaint dated 20/08/2017 was made against Sh. Manoranjan Kumar Sirivastava, Vigilance Officer (now retired) to Hon'ble Prime Minister, CVC, CMD, NTC and CVO NTC. The said complaint was closed and on retirement all dues were paid to Sh. Manoranjan Kumar Sirivastava.

The appellant wants the closure report of the said complaint.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The appellant was aggrieved that the CPIO denied the information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act and that no order was passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: R K Singh, Senior Manager Legal & PIO alongwith Mohit Kumar, Junior Manger & APIO and Akshay Pandey, Assistant Manager(Vigilance), all present in person.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought a copy of the inquiry/investigation report wherein it was concluded that no excess payment was made to Sh. D.P. Singh, Advocate, Allahabad.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has denied the information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act and that no order has been passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that the desired information was not provided to him.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Lalit Kumar Samantaray, representative of the CPIO, present in person and R K Kharbanda, Superintendent Engineer, representative of the CPIO, present over VC.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1

1. No. of employees posted in NWDA on the posts of Assistant Engineer/ Asst. Executive Engineer as on 01/01/2017 in the format as given in the RTI application.

2. Total Number of transfer orders issued in respect of all cadres (including on promotion) from 01/01/2017 to 30/06/2018 in the format as given in the RTI application.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

The appellant has sought information with regard to His complaint against Jayaraj Annapackiam, CSI Polytechnic College, Nazareth and Advertisement of the college dated 23/05/2018 in Dinaharan paper as under:

1. Whether Extension of Approval (EOA) has been given to the captioned college for the academic year 2018-2019.

1

2. Date of receipt of his complaint dated 17/05/2018 against Jayaraj Annapackiam.

3. Action taken on his complaint dated 17/05/2018.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The representative of the appellant submitted that the response of the CPIO in rejecting his RTI application on the pretext that the IPO was not properly addressed, directing him to send the application fee in favour of the Member Secretary, AICTE was totally wrong and against the spirit of the RTI Act and they had deliberately refused to provide the relevant information to him.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Jayanta Mukhopadhaya, DDG(Tech) & CPIO, Directorate General of Shipping DG(S), Kanjurmarg (East) Mumbai present through VC.

At the outset, Commission remarked that the Appellant has filed myriad of RTI Applications/Second Appeals pertaining to Marine Engineer Officer-Class-1 (MEO CL-1) examination attended by him on various dates.

It was further remarked that as it appears the Appellant has premised all these Appeals on same subject matter through incoherent queries and none of the RTI Applications conform to Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012 which provides as under:

"3. Application Fee.--An application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant:..."

"A. Please supply following information (eight points) regarding entire train reserved for the ladies i.e. Matribhumi Local (Ladies special):

Page 1 of 4

1. How many ladies special (EMU local) trains are running in Sealdah division as well as Howrah division along with the particular scheduled time of departure from terminal station,

2. Whether ladies special local trains are introduces with the conformity of Indian Railways Act, 1989,

3. If yes, please give the reference of section of Indian Railways Act, under which the entire local train has been reserved for ladies as identified by name Matribhumi Local (Ladies special), etc. B. As per the provision of Section 58 of Indian Railway Act, 1989, one compartment or some births or seats can be reserved for exclusive use of female, but in West Bengal, entire local train is reserved for exclusive use of females. In this connection, information (four points) may please be provided as under:

"1. Kindly provide information on action taken on the attached complaint sent to Sr. DCM, Mumbai Central,

2. Kindly provide copy of tender documents of tender award of parking at Borivali and Dahisar Railway Stations to Hari Om Enterprises, Page 1 of 3

3. Kindly provide information if the parking contractor is required to generate electronic receipt of the parking fees charged, etc."

2. The CPIO responded on 26.03.2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 03.04.2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 30.05.2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

"1. Whether or not wrist watches are pre-packaged commodity in terms of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, if the package is used only for safety purposes and to keep away dust/dirt, and

2. If the answer to point no. 1 is no, then are the watches covered under the ambit of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the rules made thereunder?"

Page 1 of 4

2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 13.02.2018 requesting to provide the information sought for. The first appeal was disposed of on 06.04.2018. Not satisfied by the reply of the FAA, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on this ground and requested the Commission to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Page 1 of 4

V/PVO/227/2012/PS/8 dated 28.06.2013 of Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram - 695014.

2. The CPIO responded on 05.02.2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 05.03.2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 16.04.2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Shri P.Sunil, and the respondent, Shri Prem Chandra, Deputy Vigilance Officer, M/o Railways, Southern Railway, Chennai, Tamil Naidu attended the hearing through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

2. The CPIO responded on 19.04.2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 'nil' which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission Page 1 of 3 requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent, Shri Satbir Singh, ADMM, and Shri Madhu Kr. Singh, OS, M/o Railways, Northern Railway, Ferozpur, Punjab attended the hearing through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

"1. Please provide the hard copy of CPO/S.C.Railway letter circulated vide no. SCR/P.HQ/498/Pass dated 12.04.2013,

2. What are the sources/references of the above letter,

3. Suppose, due to administrative reasons, any employee has been delayed in granting MACP to Grade Pay 4200/-, though the time schedule was framed Page 1 of 3 by Railway Board for granting MACP in point no. 6 of Railway Board RBE no. 101/2009 dated 10.06.2009 and in RBE no. 10/2016 dated 19.01.2016, granted MACP after his retirement, is the contents of the above CPO letter applicable to that railway employee."

"1. Please furnish the status of the complaint dated 12.05.2017 and 08.06.2017,

2. Please furnish the date of receipt of the above noted PIDPI complaints by CVO, N.F. railway from CVC, Page 1 of 3

3. Please furnish date of submission of investigation report by Vigilance inspector in connection to the above noted complaints, along with the order of file noting of CVO, N.F. Railway, and

4. Please furnish the copy of report of CVO, N.F. Railway submitted to CVC or Vigilance Advisor, Railway Board in regard to the above noted complaints."

2. The CPIO responded on 07.03.2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 15.03.2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 17.04.2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.