In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002011
Date of Hearing : November 16, 2011
Date of Decision : November 16, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri. C.T.Adsule
796/C
Railway Colony (West)
Valsad 396 001
The Applicant was present at NIC Studio, Valsad
Respondents
Western Railway
General Manager's Office
Churchgate
Mumbai
Represented by : Shri. S.M.Meena, PIO
Shri. B. Mahapatra, SPO
NIC Studio, Mumbai
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002011
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.13.3.11 with the PIO, Western Railway HQ, Mumbai seeking
information against six points with reference to his representation dt.2.3.11 about the seniority list of
Group ‘B’ officers of Civil Engineering Department addressed to GM(E) CCG. Shri S.Kademani, PIO
replied on 15.4.11 stating that the Applicant has not asked for any specific recorded information but
has requested for redressal of his grievance regarding seniority of Group ‘B’ officers and that the
relief sought in the representation dt.2.3.11 does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act. Not satisfied
with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.6.5.11 with the Appellate Authority stating that his RTI
application solicits specific material information and is not a letter seeking grievance redressal. Shri
Subodh Jain, Appellate Authority in his order dt.16.6.11 stated that he had got the case examined
and that the representation dt.2.3.11 is still under examination. He added that as soon as a decision
is taken in this matter the same will be communicated to the Applicant . The Applicant filed a second
appeal dt.2.8.11 before CIC requesting for certified copies of the file notings, correspondence,
remarks etc. related to the action taken on his representation dt.2.3.11.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents informed the Commission that the representation has been
disposed off and the decision taken on it has been conveyed to the Appellant who received the same
on 12.11.11. The Appellant on his part while admitting to having received the decision, still insisted
on being provided with file notings and other correspondence etc. indicating the action taken on his
representation, starting from the date of its receipt in the office. The Appellant also admitted to
having inspected related records on 14.10.11 and complained that of the 127 pages identified by him
, copies of only 15 were provided and sought copies of the remaining documents.
3. The Commission accordingly directs the PIO to provide copies of file notings/correspondence
indicating movement of the representation dt.2.3.11 from the date of its receipt till the date of
disposal. The PIO is also directed to provide the copies of the missing documents requested by the
Appellant in writing on 14.10.11. This exercise to be completed by 16.12.11 and the Appellant to
submit a compliance report to the Commission by 23.12.11.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri. C.T.Adsule
796/C
Railway Colony (West)
Valsad 396 001
2. The Public Information Officer
Western Railway
General Manager’s Office
Churchgate
Mumbai
3. The Appellate Authority
Western Railway
General Manager’s Office
Churchgate
Mumbai
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 the Commission’s decision, and (3) 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.
