In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/002003
Date of Hearing : November 9, 2011
Date of Decision : November 9, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Rudra Pratap Narayan Yadav
Mohalla Gopalpur
Post New Shivpuri Colony,
Thana Cantt, Distt. Gorakhpur
Uttarpradesh
The Appellant was present at NIC VC facility at Gorakhpur.
Respondents
North Eastern Railway
Gorakshpur
UP
Represented by: Shri Amit Singh, Dy. GM, Shri Dhirendra Kumar, DCM, Shri G.N. Singh, APIO, Vig and Shri
Ashok Srivastva, Inspector (RTI) -- present at NIC VC facility at Gorakhpur
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002003
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant field his RTIapplication dated 18.04.2011 with the PIO, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur. Through this application, he wanted to know as to what action the public authority has
taken on his complaint dated 03.03.2011, which he had filed before three different authorities (viz.,
General Manager; Chief Vigilance Officer; Chief Commercial officer) of the public authority against
one Shri Shyam Narayan Singh, CTTI, Lucknow Division. This application was replied to by four
different PIOs vide their letters dated 21.04.2011, 12.05.2011, 26.05.2011 and 06.06.2011. The
Applicant, thereafter, filed his first appeal with the Appellate Authority (AA) on 15.06.2011 which the
AA decided on 15.06.2011, holding that the replies given by the PIOs are satisfactory. Aggrieved with
the AA’s decision, the Appellant filed the present petition before the Commission on 06.08.2011
requesting that the desired information be provided to him.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents informed the Commission that they on 29.06.2011 have
provided to the Appellant complete information (i.e. copy of enquiry report; copies of complete file
noting and correspondences) corresponding to his RTIapplication. The Appellant, on his part, while
acknowledging the receipt of the information from the Respondents, complained that the
Respondents are not taking action against the above mentioned person (against whom he had filed
the complaint) despite the adverse findings against him in the enquiry report. The Respondents
answered that since they have not found any irregularity on the part of the accused person, they have
not taken any action against him and that they have also communicated this fact to the Appellant vide
letter dated 08.07.2011.
3. On examining the submissions above, I find nothing which has been withheld by way of information
from the Appellant here with regard to his RTIapplication. The Appellant, however, appears to be
unhappy with the Respondents for not taking action which he had expected from them, on his
complaint and, therefore, now wants the Commission to direct the Respondents to take such action
on his complaint. This is something which lies beyond the purview of the RTIAct.
4. In view of the above, the present appeal cannot be allowed. Rejected.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Rudra Pratap Narayan Yadav
Mohalla Gopalpur
Post New Shivpuri Colony,
Thana Cantt, Distt. Gorakhpur
Uttarpradesh
2. Appellate Authority
North Eastern Railway
Office of General Manager/Commercial
Gorakhpur
UP
3. Public Information Officer
North Eastern Railway
Office of General Manager
Gorakhpur
UP
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.