Central Information Commission
CIC/OP/A/2009/000335 -AD
Dated 3rd February, 2010
Name of the Applicant : MR. GUL THAKUR
Name of the Public Authority : CENTRAL RAILWAY, CST MUMBAI
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 24.11.08 with the Divisional Railway Manager
cum PIO, Central Railway, Mumbai seeking information as follows:
1) How many different types and models of speakers are installed in suburban trains.
2) Since installation of Public Address System in suburban trains, how many cases of
theft are reported by various carsheds of Central Railway (month wise)
3) The amount of loss suffered by Railways on account of theft of speakers.
4) When the system is not operational, what was the necessity to replace it with new
ones. Whether the speakers so replaced were of same make and model or
otherwise.
5) How much amount spent by railways on replacement of speakers.
6) Whether any efforts made by Railways to recover the lost property and in yes, the
lost property recovered and its value.
7) What steps Railways have initiated to stop this loot.
2. The PIO replied on 12.12.08 providing point wise information. Not satisfied with the
reply, the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 02.01.09 wanting to know what are the
anti theft measures put in place and whether the anti theft measures are restricted to
only PA system or they cover other properties of Railways. He also commented on the
information provided. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 06.02.09 provided
further clarification against each point. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant
filed his Second Appeal on 04.06.09 seeking the total nos. of theft cases of speakers
reported by various car sheds since the date of installation of public address system.
He also stated that with regard to the query against point 2 the Appellate Authority
has furnished information about only Kurla car shed and not about the remaining 2
car sheds. He requested for the complete information.
3. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the
hearing for 3rd February, 2010.
4. Mr. Atul B Rane, Sr. DCM cum PIO and Mr. Girish Kumar C. Golanki, DEE/ TRS cum
Nodal Officer represented the Public Authority.
5. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
6. The Respondent submitted that with regard to point 1 the information which has been
provided to the Appellant is correct since from 1996 onwards ie. after installation of
anti theft measures there have been no theft case of speakers. As for the total no. of
theft cases of speakers before 1996, according to the Respondent, the information was
not maintained and hence is not available. Since there are no theft cases from the 3
car sheds after 1996, the Commission holds that available information has been
provided to the Appellant. With regard point 2, the Respondent maintained that the
information although given by Sr. DEN, Kurla, actually pertains to all the 3 car sheds
and not just one and hence information provided is correct and complete. The
Commission accordingly holds that complete information has been provided and
disposes off the appeal.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. Gul Thakur
# 202
Dharam Jyot CHS Ltd.
Hospital Area
Ulhasnagar – 421 003.
2. The PIO
Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Commercial Branch, CST
Mumbai.
3. The Appellate Authority
Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Commercial Branch, CST
Mumbai.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC