In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001542
Date of Hearing : September 05, 2011
Date of Decision : September 05, 2011
Parties: (Heard through videoconference)
Appellant
Shri Amit Arvind Katarnaware
MS/RB II/08/02, Central Railway Colony,
Sector 2, Juinagar,
Navi Mumbai 400 705
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Central Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Commercial Branch, CST,
Mumbai
The Respondents were not present.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001542
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication dated 12.10.2010 with the PIO, Central Railway, Mumbai,
seeking information against 4 points viz., 1. Copy of letter No. AISC/ST/Post/11/09 of All India
SC/ST/Rly Emp Asso Sanpada Branch received on 16/11/2009 by DEE (TRS) Sanpada; 2. reasons
th
for nowithdrawal of his arrears in connection with revised pay scale of 6 CPC; 3. details of gift
received and property owned by Mr. Janak Kumar, Sr. DEE (TRS) Kurla Carshed and Mr. G.C.
Chauriya RPF SI Sanpada; and 4. details of place of residence, duty timing and rest hours of Mr.
B.K. Chauriya RPF SI, Sanpada from 01012005 till today. The PIO, on 14.01.2011, declined the
disclosure of information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTIAct. The Applicant, who did
not receive the PIO’s reply within the prescribed time limit, filed his 1 stappeal with the Appellate
Authority on 14.01.2011 (i.e the day when PIO had sent his reply to him). The AA, in his order dated
18.02.2011, while recording that the PIO’s reply was delayed due to administrative reasons, also
upheld the PIO’s reply. The Appellant thereafter filed the present appeal (dated 13.06.2011) before
the Commission requesting for the disclosure of full information.
Decision
2. On examining the records and after hearing the Appellant’s submission, the following decision is
made in respect of the Appellant’s RTIqueries:
Item Nos. 1 & 4:
3. It is directed that the PIO shall provide this information to the Appellant by the 5th October, 2011.
Item No. 2:
4. It is directed that the PIO, on a day, time and place to be identified and intimated to the Appellant in
advance, shall allow the Appellant to inspect the file, dealing with payment of his arrear, as well as
the other relevant records. After inspection, the Appellant, on the payment of the requisite fee, may
take photocopies of documents, which he may identify from the inspected file. This exercise also to
be completed by 5.10.11.
Item No. 3:
5. As regards the supply of details of gifts received by two individuals mentioned in the RTIapplication,
it is directed that the PIO, by 5.10.11 shall furnish this information to the Appellant as per information
available in the records with him.
As for the details of property owned by the above two individuals, it is directed that the PIO shall first
follow the procedure laid down under Section 11(1) of the RTIAct and then decide the disclosability
of this information afresh. He shall after completing the said exercise communicate his findings to the
Appellant by 05.10.2011.
6. The Commission directs the PIO to showcause as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon him
for not furnishing the information within the stipulated period. The response to reach the Commission
by 5.10.11.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Amit Arvind Katarnaware
MS/RB II/08/02, Central Railway Colony,
Sector 2, Juinagar,
Navi Mumbai 400 705
2. The Appellate Authority
Central Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Commercial Branch, CST,
Mumbai
3. Public Information Officer
Central Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Commercial Branch, CST,
Mumbai
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant
may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTI
application, (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 may indicate, what information has not been provided.