In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000448
Date of Hearing : May 12, 2011
Date of Decision : May 12, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Badal Sengupta
Subhash Nagar Estate
31/4 Krishna Nivas
390 N.M.Joshi Marg
Mumbai 400 011
The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Respondents
The Public Information Officer
Central Railway
O/o the General Manager
Public Information Cell (HQ), CST
Mumbai 400 001
Represented by : Shri Chacko Thomas, APIO
Shri Rajesh Kumar, CI
NIC Studio, Mumbai
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000448
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.15.7.10 with the PIO, Central Railway Mumbai seeking
information against 28 points running into 17 pages with regard to irregular fixation of pay scale and
cash allowances of the staff of Accounts Department, which leads to variation of pay scale between
Accounts Department and other departments. Shri V.A.Malegaonkar, PIO replied on 13.8.10. With
regard to points 1 to 12, 18, 19 and 25, he requested the Applicant to deposit Rs.18/ towards supply
of 9 pages of documents. With regard to other items, he stated that the RTI application does not
pertain to his Railway and advised the Applicant to approach the appropriate Public Authority for the
same. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.20.8.10 with the Appellate Authority stating that the RTI
application ought to have been transferred to other 41 other Public Authorities u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act.
Shri S.V.Arya, Appellate Authority replied on 28.9.10. With regard to Applicant’s query regarding
nontransfer of RTI application to concerned public authorities, the Appellate Authority replied as
follows:
‘It is settled law that under section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 applicant is required to apply to the
‘concerned’ public authority. In the instant case, DGM & PIO(HQ), Central Railway is not the
concerned public authority for several items as yourself have admitted by mentioning that the RTI
application should have been transferred under section 6(3) to different ministries. Since you are
aware of the concerned public authority you may, therefore, apply directly to the concerned public
authority under 6(1) of the RTI Act. In this regard it is settled law that section 6(1) is a general rule
wherein every information seeker is required to seek information from ‘concerned’ public authority.
Section 6(3) is only an exception and it cannot be read independent of section 6(1) of the Act.’
The Appellate Authority also provided 9 pages of documents. Being aggrieved with the reply, the
Applicant filed a second appeal dt.16.12.10 before CIC running into 11 pages stating that information
against points 6 and 7 are important to him.
Decision
2. The Appellant is advised to seek information which is clear and focused on a particular issue and
which is available in material form in the records of the Public Authority as explained under section
2(f) of the RTI Act. From the RTI application running into 17 pages, it is not clear as to what exactly
the Applicant is seeking against several points. Most of the contents of the RTI application relate to
the Applicant’s grievance with regard to the functioning of the Railways. It is noted that the PIO has
made genuine efforts to glean some information that is being sought from the 17 pages and has
provided the information on payment of Rs.18/. The Appellant’s complaint regarding irregular
fixation of pay are grievances related to his service matters and the Commission is not in a position to
grant any relief in this regard. The Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum for
redressal of his grievances.
3. Nevertheless, the Commission reviewed the information sought against points 6, 7, 8 and 16 and
after hearing the submissions of the Respondents directs the PIO to transfer the RTI application to
PIO, Railway Board against these points along with a copy of this Order directing the PIO, Rly Board
to furnish the information directly to the Appellant by 12.6.11 . With regard to the Appellant’s
complaint about nontransfer of RTI application to other Public Authorities, the Commission upholds
the decision of the Appellate Authority. The Appellant is advised to file a fresh RTI application with
the concerned Pubic Authority for the information, if he so desires.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Badal Sengupta
Subhash Nagar Estate
31/4 Krishna Nivas
390 N.M.Joshi Marg
Mumbai 400 011
2. The Public Information Officer
Central Railway
O/o the General Manager
Public Information Cell (HQ), CST
Mumbai 400 001
3. The Appellate Authority
Central Railway
O/o the General Manager
Public Information Cell (HQ), CST
Mumbai 400 001
4. Officer in charge, NIC