In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000064
Date of Hearing : March 11, 2011
Date of Decision : March 11, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri C.T. Adsule
796/C, Railway Colony (West),
Valsad, Gujarat
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Western Railway,
Headquarters Office,
Churchgate
Mumbai 400 020
Represented by: Shri P.K. Gopikumar, Sr. Personnel Officer(Engg.) and Shri Madhav, Chief O.S. and Shir
V.M. Balse, Chief Inspector
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000064
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication with the PIO, Western Railway, Mumbai Headquarters on
01.08.2010 wanting to know the reasons for not declaring his result for selection to the post of AEN
pursuant to the remarks dated 09.04.2010 of the Assistant Law Officer who opined that the “Result
may be declared subject to the outcome of W.P. pending in High Court keeping in view of rule/policy
on the subject.”
2. The PIO, on 20.08.2010, furnished the copies of the relevant file noting to the Applicant. The
Appellate Authority, on being approached by the Applicant through 1 stappeal dated 01.09.2010, sent
a reply of Dy. CPO to the Applicant offering the inspection of relevant files to him(the Applicant).
3. The Applicant, however, being still dissatisfied with the information, filed his 2 ndappeal before the
Commission on 14.10.2010 alleging that the information furnished to him is incomplete .
Decision
4. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that the Appellant has already inspected the relevant
files on 24.03.2010 and has also obtained the photocopies of the complete file. The Appellant,
however, was still unhappy with the information received by him and stated that the Respondents are
not complying with the Court direction by which his case for selection was directed to be considered
by the public authority. The Respondents clarified that the said judgment of the Court which the
Appellant is referring to , was passed in 2008 whereas, the present matter referred to in the RTI
application relates to a separate pending proceeding before the Court. The Appellant, thereafter,
identified a document i.e. Selection proceedings related to his case, which he is keen on obtaining to
which the Respondent reacted by saying that since the matter of the selection of the Appellant is
pending in the Court, the selection proceedings can only be supplied after applying the severability
clause of Section 10 (1) of the RTIAct, ie. after removing all the proceedings related to the
Appellant .
5. Considering the fact that the very same matter relating to the above information is pending before
the court of law, it is considered fit to remit this matter back to the CPIO who will examine this piece
of request under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTIAct and then take a decision about the disclosure of the
same. This is to be completed by 10.4.11.
6. The appeal is disposed of with these directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc
1. Shri C.T. Adsule
796/C, Railway Colony (West),
Valsad, Gujarat
2. The Appellate Authority
Western Railway,
Headquarters Office,
Churchgate
Mumbai 400 020
3. The Public Information Officer
Western Railway,
Headquarters Office,
Churchgate
Mumbai 400 020
4. Officer Incharge, NIC