In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2011/000918
Date of Hearing : September 14, 2011
Date of Decision : September 14, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Ashwani Kumar
F178/F2 Dilshad Colony
Delhi 110 095
The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Respondents
Northern Railway
Headquarter Office
Baroda House
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri Rakesh Tyagi, Dy.GM/Law
Shri K.S.Ramuwalia, Director(HQ), CAG of India
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2011/000918
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.31.1.11 with the PIO, Northern Railway HQ seeking
information against four queries from the O/o Director of Audit of Northern Railway in connection with
recovery of rent/license fee not charged by the concerned department from all branches and Head
Office of NZRECTC at Baroda House, New Delhi. The APIO vide his letter dt.7.2.11 transferred the
RTI Application to Director of Audit (HQ). On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed an
Complaint dt.12.3.11 with the Appellate Authority, Northern Railway HQ. The CPIO forwarded the
Complaint to the Appellate Authority, Audit (HQ) Branch vide letter dt.28.3.11. On not receiving any
further reply, the Applicant filed a second Complaint dt.28.4.11 before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondent from Audit (HQ) submitted that information sought against points
1 to 3 relate to Northern Railway HQ. When queried as to why the application was transferred to
Audit (HQ), the Respondents from Northern Railway HQ submitted that the Complainant had
specifically sought information in his RTI Application from the O/o Director of Audit. Shri Rakesh
Tyagi, further added that the application was however later forwarded to PIO/Accounts on 30.5.11
which was received by them on 2.6.11. The Complainant at this stage submitted that PIO/Accounts
had forwarded the application to PIOs of Delhi Division and Amritsar vide his letter dt.1.7.11 and that
no reply has been received from the two PIOs.
3. The Commission after hearing the submissions while holding that information sought against point 4
does not fall under the definition of ‘information’ as given u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, directs the
PIO/Accounts to obtain the information from the concerned Division and to provide the same to the
Complainant by 14.10.11.
4. The Complaint is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Ashwani Kumar
F178/F2 Dilshad Colony
Delhi 110 095
2. The Public Information Officer
Northern Railway
Headquarter Office
Baroda House
New Delhi
3. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Complainant/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 Complainant/Complainant may
indicate, what information has not been provided.