In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2011/001059
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Date of Hearing : November 15, 2011
Date of Decision : November 15, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Mahatma Tiwari
Retd Engineer
Mithanpura (Jagadishpuri)
PO Ramna House
Muzaffarpur - 842002.
Applicant was present.
Respondent(s)
Dy. Chief Comml. Manager (G)
Northern Railway
Head quarter Office
Baroda House
New Delhi.
Representative : Shri J K Malhotra
Shri Rakesh Tyagi
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2011/001059
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 29.6.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Northern Railway,
HQ Office, New Delhi. He sought information against the following points.
a) Railway’s responsibility as Public Utility carrier.
b) Scope of IRCA regulating 306 of coaching tariff a) Types of failures covered b) Protection to Rail
users interests as well as interest to avoid harassment.
c) Policy regarding steps to be taken by aggrieved passengers/public due to a) failure of usually stated
services due to negligence etc of Railway machinery. B) Non receipt of intimation of any change or
alternatives from Rail Administration.
d) The ways and means to check the wastage of public funds a) In the event of cases against railways
for their failures to serve its customers/users (Coal and goods traffics) while contesting the cases
upon technical legal aspects at evading responsibility to care the interests of users. B) In the
situations of lost cases by filing appeals, etc incurring expenses by railway of appreciable amount
etc.
The Applicant filed his first appeal on 2.8.10 stating that no information has been received from the
PIO. The PIO meanwhile replied on 3.8.10 providing point wise information and stating that
information against point 1 pertains to Railway Board office. On not receiving any response to his
first appeal the Applicant filed his complaint before the Commission.
Decision.
2. Heard submissions.
3. The Commission directs the PIO, Northern Railway, HQ Office, New Delhi to show cause as to why
a penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing the information within the mandatory
period.
4. The PIO during the hearing informed the Commission that information has already been provided
with respect to point 2 and that with respect of points 1, 3 and 4, the RTI application has been
transferred to Railway Board office for providing information against these points directly to the
Appellant. Point no. 2 therefore was taken up for discussion and it was noted that the Respondents
were not able to understand as to what exactly the Appellant is seeking in this point. It was
thereafter decided that the Applicant would seek specific information against point 2 in terms of
material available in the records, within five days on receipt of this order and the Respondent will
provide the information within two weeks of receipt of the details.
5. The PIO, Railway Board is also directed to provide the information against point 1, 3 and 4 if
available in the records and also to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon
him for not providing the information to the Appellant within the mandatory period after receiving
the transferred RTI application.. The explanation should reach the Commission by 15 th December
2011.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
1. Shri Mahatma Tiwari
Retd Engineer
Mithanpura (Jagadishpuri)
PO Ramna House
Muzaffarpur – 842002.
2. The Public Information Officer
Dy. Chief Comml. Manager (G)
Northern Railway
Head quarter Office
Baroda House
New Delhi.
3. The Public Information Officer
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan
Raisina Road
New Delhi.
4. 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.