Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/001061
Dated August 12, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri C.B.Saxena
Name of the Public Authority : O/o Chief Workshop Manager
Western Railway, Ahmedabad
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.18.4.09 with the PIO, O/o Chief Workshop Manager,
Western Railway, Mumbai seeking voluminous information running into 12 pages againt 15 points
and various sub points. On not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.26.6.09 before CIC also
running into a large number of pages (not legible as they were handwritten and not photocopied
properly) . The CIC vide its order of dt.14.6.10 directed the PIO to provide the information by 30.7.10
and also to appear before the Commission on 12.8.10 at 12.30 pm with all the relevant files and
documents and also with the response to the showcause notice issued to him.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, accordingly scheduled the hearing
for August 12, 2010.
3. Shri G.S.Gautam, PIO & WM/EWS and Shri Anil Sharma, APO represented the Public Authority.
4. The Complainant was heard through audio conferencing.
Decision
5. The Commission received a rejoinder dt.7.8.10 from the PIO stating that the Complainant had initially
submitted his RTI application vide his letter dt.18.11.08 which was replied to on 4.12.08. In addition
to the above another copy of the reply letter was provided to him vide letter dt.26.7.10 after receiving
the hearing notice from the Commission. He added that the Complainant in his footnote to the RTI
application dt.18.4.09 had stated that ‘parawise reply may be provided to CPIO DGM(General)
Churchgate HQ Office’. Accordingly, the reply was prepared and forwarded to Churchgate on 1.5.09.
At the same time, APIO HQ Office had also provided the reply to the Complainant with reference to
his application dt.18.4.09 on 24.4.09. Also on receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, one
more reply had been prepared and provided to the Complainant on 26.7.10 providing further
information against points 6 and 7. Information against points 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15(i), 15(ii),
15(iii), 15(iv) remains same as that furnished earlier.
6. During the hearing, the Respondent also submitted that that Complainant had inspected the
documents. He added that some of the documents sought by the Appellant were not available in the
file. When the Complainant pointed out that the information had not being supplied in response to his
RTI application dt.18.11.08, the Commission informed him that the instant RTI application is dated
18.4.09 and that he had not enclosed the second RTI application dt.18.11.08. The Commission also
advised the Appellant to refrain from writing such lengthy appeals running into may pages and
instead remain focused and ask for specific information or else the Commission would be
constrained to dismiss the same without a hearing.
7. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides directs the PIO to provide an affidavit to
the Commission with a copy to the Complainant indicating the documents not available on record and
the reasons for their nonavailability. The affidavit should reach the Commission by 12.9.10 and the
Complainant is directed to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 19.9.10.
8. The Commission also holds that there is no delay on the part of the PIO in responding to the RTI
application and that available information has been provided and drops the penalty proceedings
initiated against him.
9. The Complaint is disposed of with the above directions and the case is closed at the Commission’s
end.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri C.B.Saxena
H.No.60/B, Shanti Niketan Society
D’ Cabin
Sabarmati
Ahmedabad 380 019
2. The PIO
Western railway
O/o Chief Workshop Manager (EW)
Sabarmati
Ahmedabad 19
3. Officer incharge, NIC