In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001247
Date of Hearing : July 20, 2011
Date of Decision : July 20, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Kailash Prasad, C/o Shri Surendra Prasad,
Sultanpur, Near Si. Bha. Ma School,
Danapura Cantt,
Patna 801 503
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
State Entry Road,
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri S.P. Mahi, ADRM/T, Shri Jagjit Singh, SR DMM, Shri Parveen Kumar, ADEN,
Shri S.P. Sharma, DPO and Ms. Seema V. Verma, APO CT&C
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001247
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 26.10.2010, filed with the PIO, Northern Railway,
New Delhi, sought certain information (9 points) regarding the finalization of vigilance case (No. 156
07commlI) against him. The PIO, on 23.12.2010, gave pointwise information to the Applicant. The
Applicant, however, being aggrieved with the PIO’s reply, filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate
Authority (AA) which, according to the Appellant, was not decided by him. The Appellant, thereafter,
filed the present petition before the Commission on 25.04.2011 listing out the documents–identified
in (iv) items–he presently needed.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that they have recently, on 16.06.2011, supplied the
requested document/information to the Appellant in respect of item nos. (i) to (iii) of his present
appeal and that they have transferred the Appellant’s request with respect to item no. (iv) to the PIO,
Jodhpur for response. The Appellant, however, informed the Commission that he has not yet seen
the above information dated 16.6.11 and hence is unable to comment on its quality.
3. Since the Respondents have supplied the information in respect of item nos. (i) to (iii) mentioned in
the present appeal to the Appellant, no direction need be given in this regard. However, with regard
to information listed at item no. (iv), which according to the Respondents is held by PIO, Jodhpur, it is
directed that the PIO, Jodhpur should furnish this information to the Appellant within 20 days of
receipt of this order, free of cost. The present PIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to the PIO,
Jodhpur for compliance.
4. The Appellant also complained about the delayed supply of information to him which, on perusal of
records, was found to be there at the level of the Appellate Authority. However, as per submissions
during the hearing it is because of the delay in putting up the file to the AA that the AA could not
dispose of the appeal on time. The PIO is therefore, directed to showcause as to why a penalty
should not be imposed upon him for seemingly obstructing the supply of information by not putting up
the file in time to the AA. His explanation to reach the Commission by 25 August, 2011.
6. Since there has been a delay in supplying the information to the Appellant, the amount collected from
him towards supply of information may be refunded to him.
7. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Kailash Prasad, C/o Shri Surendra Prasad,
Sultanpur, Near Si. Bha. Ma School,
Danapura Cantt,
Patna 801 503
2. The Appellate Authority
Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
State Entry Road,
New Delhi
3. The Public Information Officer
Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
State Entry Road,
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving
(1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy
of the Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding
the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/ Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.