In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001696
Date of Hearing : September 20, 2011
Date of Decision : September 20, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri V.S.Dwarakanath
21107
7th Cross
Uttam Nagar
Malkajgiri
Hyderabad 500 047
The Appellant was heard through audio
Respondents
Ministry of Railways
CPIO3
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri B. Majumdar, PIO & DE(GP)
Shri Peeyush Kapasi, APIO & DDE(GP)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001696
ORDER
Background
The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.31.1.11 with the PIO, Railway Board seeking information
against ten points including the following:
i) Copy of Dr.S.Venugopalachari, Ex.M.P(Lok Sabha)’s letter dt.2.7.99 and 16.8.2000
addressed to Shri Nitish Kumar and Ms.Mamta Banerjee in connection with the case of one Shri
S.K.Prasada Rao, Personnel Inspector Gr.I, CWM’s office, Lalaguda, South Central Railway for
promotion to the post of APO along with its enclosures.
ii) Copy of the replies to the above letter along with file notings and orders of the Ministers and
the officials of railways.
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.21.3.11 with the Appellate Authority
reiterating his request for the information.
Shri N.K.Jain, CPIO3 replied on 7.4.11 enclosing the point wise information furnished by Shri
Peeyush Kapasi, DDE(GP). Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.18.5.11
with the Appellate Authority and on not receiving any response from the FAA, he filed a second
appeal dt.4.7.11 before CIC.
Decision
2. At the outset, the Appellant submitted that even though he had sent a letter dated 21.2.11 indicating
change of his address , the PIO had deliberately sent the reply to his old address and that too after
his having filed the first appeal on 21.3.11. He stated that he received the reply dt.7.4.11 from the
Respondents against which he had preferred an appeal dt.18.5.11 with the Appellate Authority and
that no response has been received from the FAA till date. The Respondents submitted that the
delay was not deliberate and the change of address was not noted due to oversight. He added that
the first appeal dt.18.5.11 was neither received by him nor by the RTI Cell.
3. The Commission at this stage noted that the Appellant has filed two appeals with the First Appellate
Authority and in this connection would like to draw the attention of the Appellant to Section of the RTI
Act which allows only one first appeal. Instead of a second appeal to the First Appellate authority the
Appellant ought to have preferred an appeal before the Commission. The second appeal before the
FAA is therefore not being taken into consideration by the Commission.
3. The Appellant pointed out various deficiencies in the information provided to him against some points
which were then taken up for discussion by the Commission. The following decisions were taken
consequent to the discussions:
i) On perusal of the notings furnished against item No.2 it was noted that the notings with
S.Nos.10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 22, 23 and 24 have not been provided. Copies of the same to be
furnished , if available in the file.
ii) Against item 6 of the application, though the Appellant had sought all the correspondence
and replies with their enclosures, the enclosures to annexure XVI and XVII have not been supplied
i.e. ACRs of the candidate, marks, DPC proceedings etc. The Commission directs the PIO to
withhold the copies of ACRs of the others as the same are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act . The remaining information may be provided after severing under Section 10(1) any
information that is personal in nature u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
iii) Enclosures to annexures against point 9, to be provided .
iv) Notings and orders on annexure XVI and XVII against point 2 have not been furnished .
Copies of the same may be provided.
v) Shri S.Venugopalachari’s letter to Railway Minister dt.22.5.01 indicated on page 11 of
AnnexureIII and in Annexure VI may be supplied.
4. The information should reach the Appellant by 20.10.11.
5. The Commission also directs the PIO to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon
him u/s20(1) of the RTI Act for not responding to the RTI Application with the prescribed time limit.
He may submit his response to the Commission by 27.10.11.
6. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri V.S.Dwarakanath
21107
7th Cross
Uttam Nagar
Malkajgiri
Hyderabad 500 047
2. The Public Information Officer
Ministry of Railways
CPIO3
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority &
Secretary
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan
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 the Commission’s decision, and (3) 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.