CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000916/3642
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000916
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Niraj Kumar
Bunglow No. 64,
New Western Railway Officers Colony,
Near Gandhigram Railway Station,
(In front of Orient Club)
Ahmedabad-380006.
Respondent : Mr. V.K.Samuel
APIO
Railway Board
Ministry of Railway, Govt. of India.
RTI application filed on : 03/12/2008
PIO replied : 06/02/2009
First appeal filed on : 23/02/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not replied
Second Appeal received on : 19/04/2009
The appellant had sought following information that Constitution of Committee
consisting of senior officers to study, examine and formulate the recommendations on any
subject for efficient function is an established practice in the Railway Board,. Such
recommendations are invariably submitted before the Railway Board for their approval. They
accept the recommendations in entirety or with medication or reject the same. In the aforesaid
background, Railway Board had set up a committee of 4 SAG Officers to submit its
recommendations regarding commonly prevalent defects in execution of works on the railway as
pointed out by Central Vigilance Commission. The above SAG Officers committee had given
certain recommendations which were circulated by Railway Board vide letter no. 94/CE-
I/CT/4DT17/09/97:-
Sl. Information sought PIO’s reply
1. In this case, whether recommendations were ever put up Yes, partly.
to the Board for their approval?
2. If yes, whether recommendations as contained in the Yes
Railway Board vide letter NO. 94/CE-I/CT/4 dated
17.09.97 were ever approved by the Railway Board.
3. Whether any recommendations of such committee are No
binding and have the force of executive instructions till it
is not approved by the Railway Board?
4. Kindly supply the noting portion of the relevant file The information had
wherein the aforesaid recommendations were put up to already been provided.
the Board and necessary approval was granted by the
Board.
The First Appellant Authority’s Order:
Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Niraj Kumar
Respondent: Mr. Gupta -EDCE(G) deemed PIO, Mr. V.K.Samuel APIO,
Mr P.K.Raenice Dy.Director CE(G)
The PIO states that the information has been provided to the appellant and the first appellate
authority on 25/03/2009 with his order had further clarified. Since appellant was not satisfied on
some of the matters the appellant was given inspection of the files on 09/06/2009, where in a
letter he has recorded “in this regard, as requested by Railway Board, I attended Railway Board’s
office on 9.6.2009 to clarify my doubts. I was given an opportunity to inspect the Case File
no.94/CE-I/CT/4/Vol.I. which I have inspected thoroughly. Some copies required by me have
been given to me from the files and I am fully satisfied with the inspection of the file and the co-
operation given by CPIO-III & EDCE(G). As regard my specific clarification regarding four
SAG officers recommendations’ approval of the Board (ME & FC), I find that only some
deliberations are there in the file which already been given to me.”
The appellant agrees that all the records has been shown to him but believes that these records do
not constitute approval of recommendations from Railway Board for this appellant has to agitate
elsewhere.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
10 June 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
AK