In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001162
Date of Hearing : August 4, 2011
Date of Decision : August 4, 2011
Parties: (heard through videoconference)
Appellant
Shri Ayodhya Prasad
H.No. 104/B, Tipsy Topsy CHS,
Sambhaji Chowk, Ulahasnagar,
Thane 421004
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Central Railway
Office of General Manager
Public Information Cell (HQ)
CST
Mumbai 400 001
Represented by: Dr. M. Lakre, Medical Director, and Dr. S.K. Tiwari Chief Health Director
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001162
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication dated 18.01.2010 with the Chief Medical Director, Central
Railway, Mumbai CST, seeking certain “clarification” interalia in respect of emergency clause of the
Railway Board’s guidelines based on the papers he enclosed with his application. He also wanted to
obtain certain specific details in a particular format, which he himself designed, in respect of
occupation of officer’s ward on 09/10/2007. The PIO, on 08.02.2010, while advising the Applicant that
the information sought at item 3 (i.e occupation of officer’s ward) may be obtained from the
MD/Byculla as it did pertain to his office, also gave required clarification to him with respect to other
items of queries. The Appellate Authority, on 18.06.2010, in response to the Appellant’s 1stappeal to
him, provided to the Appellant the information related to item no. 3 of his application which was
supplied by MD/Byculla through the Dy. CMD (T&A). The Appellant thereafter filed the present appeal
(dated 29.03.2011) before the Commission pointing out the deficiency in the information supplied to
him.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that the Respondents have not provided to him details
regarding the reimbursement made to the people in the first 6 months in the year 20092010 and that
they have furnished contradictory information in respect of item 3 of his application that too after a
delay.
3. Since the Appellant has not received the reimbursement related information for the above identified
period, it is directed that the PIO, within 2 weeks of receipt of this order, shall furnish the same to
the Appellant as per the records available with him. As regards Appellant’s allegation that he has
been given ‘contradictory’ information in respect of item 3 of his application, it is directed that the
Appellate Authority should give a personal hearing to the Appellant and verify the records visàvis
the Appellant’s allegations and then pass a speaking order on the mater within 4 weeks of receipt
of this order.
4. The PIO is also directed to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for his
failure to take action under Section 5(4) or 6(3) of the RTIAct while dealing with Appellant’s RTI
query at item no. 3 of his application, thereby obstructing the supply of information. Returnable
within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.
5. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Ayodhya Prasad
H.No. 104/B, Tipsy Topsy CHS,
Sambhaji Chowk, Ulahasnagar,
Thane 421004
2. The Appellate Authority
Central Railway
Office of General Manager
Public Information Cell (HQ)
CST
Mumbai 400 001
3. Public Information Officer
Central Railway
Office of General Manager
Public Information Cell (HQ)
CST
Mumbai 400 001
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 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/ Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.