In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001249
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Date of Hearing : September 15, 2011
Date of Decision : September 15, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri S Rajan
32/A, Babu Rajendra Prasad, Second Street
West Mambalam
Chennai.
Applicant was present.
Respondent(s)
Southern Railway
Divisional Railway manager's Office
Chennai Division, Park Town
Chennai - 600003.
Represented by : Shri A Narayanan, Sr.DPO/CPIO
Shri Arjunan, PIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001249
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 4.1.11 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, GM, Southern Railway,
Chennai seeking information related to Railway quarters at Mambalam, Chennai as also information
about Sewage water connection, supply of Drinking water to Railway colony, Accounts Department
and two wheeler parking area at MBM Station. The PIO, DRM Office, Personnel branch under
cover of its letter dated 18.1.11 forwarded the RTI Application to concerned departments to furnish
the information. The Sr.Divl.Engineer/PIO replied on 4.3.11 providing information against some
points. The Sr.DFM/PIO(Accounts) also replied on 3.2.11 providing information against two points.
Another reply dated 9.2.11 containing information about drinking water was furnished by the Chief
Medical Superintendent &PIO(Medical) . Not satisfied with these replies the Applicant filed his first
appeal on 18.2.11. The Appellate Authority replied on 28.3.11 providing further clarification. The
Appellant, however, filed his second appeal before the Commission seeking the information once
again.
Decision.
2. During the hearing, while the Commission reviewed the information provided against points identified
by the Appellant, the Respondent submitted that information against 2(b) and 2 (c) has already been
provided in his letter dated 4.3.11 and that he had made it clear in the same letter, in response to the
last point under ‘Sewerage Water connection”, that that there is no requirement of payment of taxes
to the Appellant. The Commission however, directs the PIO to affirm the information related to non
payment of taxes formally in writing to the Appellant once again. The Appellant then sought
information against point 5 (1) i.e. whether there is any schedule of inspection done by the Section
Commercial Supervisor from January 2009 to October 2010 at the two wheeler parking area and if
not whether any D & AR action has been initiated against the staff at fault. With regard to this point
the Respondent submitted that the Commercial Department had provided the information on 9.2.11
stating which, it seems , has not been received by the Appellant. He produced this reply before the
Commission and also handed over a copy of the same to the Appellant during the hearing. With
regard to information against 5(2) i.e. Whether any vigilance inspector has inspected the two wheeler
parking area at MBM station and whether any penalty has been imposed against the contractor, the
Respondent submitted that no such inspection has been done. The PIO accordingly to confirm to
the Appellant that no vigilance inspector has inspected the two wheeler parking area at MBM station
and that hence there is no question of imposing any penalty on any contractor.
3. All information to be provided by 15th October 2011.
4. The case is disposed of accordingly.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
1. Shri S Rajan
32/A, Babu Rajendra Prasad, Second Street
West Mambalam
Chennai.
2. The Public Information Officer
Southern Railway
Divisional Railway manager’s Office
Chennai Division, Park Town
Chennai – 600003.
3. Officer Incharge, NIC.
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 RTI
Act, giving (1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first
Appellant 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.