CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000701/3426
Appeal No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000701
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Deepak Singh Sachetak
38, Chhoti Piyari,
Varansi-221001
(U.P.)
Respondent : Mr. Govind Prasad
Public Information Officer,
Northern Railway,
Hajratganj,
Lucknow (U.P.)
RTI application filed on : 18/12/2008
PIO replied : 01/01/2009
First appeal filed on : 16/01/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not Mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 08/04/2009
Information sought:-
The Appellant had sought in RTI application about the difference between express,
mail, superfast and passenger trains. He has also enquired about whether 4265/4266 fulfills
the standard of express train? He wanted to know the schedules of stoppage of train from date
1.11.2008 to 30.11.2008 of train no 4266, incident of chain-pulling of 4266 Janta Express
between 1.11.2008 to 30.11.2008 and whether the driver had mentioned about this in his
logbook and if the special squad was present then. He has also enquired that whether the
railway authority keeps tab on food items sold on the railway stations and what do railway do
to ensure that the bogeys are neat and clean and windows are open properly. He wanted to
know that what does railway authority do when a train gets delayed. He has particularly
asked about an incident in which Pappu Kumar and his wife Abhilasha was thrown out of the
train to death by the miscreants and news of this incident was published in Hindustan and he
has asked whether the authority took any steps against the culprits.
The PIO’s reply:
The PIO replied to the appellant that his application is being dismissed and IPO No.
71E947080 of Rs. 10/- is being returned and his application could not be forwarded to any
organization or branch according to the rule of RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Deepak Singh Sachetak
Respondent: Mr. Govind Prasad, PIO
The PIO has rejected the application on the contention that the application was made on the
letterhead of an organization. It was explained to the PIO that since the applicant had signed
as individual capacity it was clear that the citizen of India is asking for information and
therefore the information has to be given under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information free of to the appellant before 15 June 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26 May 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(GJ)