In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001056
Date of Hearing : August 4, 2011
Date of Decision : August 4, 2011
Parties: (heard through videoconference)
Appellant
Shri Murlidhar Mahadev
Dalavi, Mahadev Smruti,
Zenda Naka Murbad,
AT Post & Taluka Murbad District,
Thane 421 401
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Central Railway
Commercial Branch, CST,
Mumbai
Represented by: Shri Atul Rane, Sr. DCM
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001056
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication dated 12.08.2010 with the PIO, Central Railway, Mumbai
st
seeking information against 6 points [viz., local train fare in 1 class from Shahad to Kalyan; if it is
less than Rs. 52/, copy of rule/circular under which the Appellant was charged Rs.52/; name &
designation of the employee appointed as ticket checker; his duties; whether police personnel are
permitted to travel without ticket when they are not on duty and if, yes then copy of rule/circular/order
in this regard along with the details of fine which was imposed on 4 police officials who deboarded
the train at Kalyan station with Railway staff] in respect of charging him both fine and fare by the TC
when he was traveling, as admitted by him, in a local train TL14 from Shahad to Klayan ‘without
any ticket’.
2. The PIO, on 14.09.2010, gave pointwise information to the Applicant which the Applicant considered
to be inadequate and thus filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority on 24.09.2010. As the
Appellant did not receive any reply to his 1stappeal, he sent a reminderletter dated 25.11.2010 to the
Appellate Authority. The AA then, through his decision dated 08.12.2010, provided to the Appellant i)
a copy of IRA 137 and ii) a list containing the name & designation of the TC staff, while holding that
the information regarding duties of TC staff have been given to the Appellant and that duties of other
than TC staff cannot be provided as it does not form part of original request. He also stated that
information given in response to point (f ) is adequate. He also recorded that since the PIO’s reply to
the Appellant was unsigned, a signed copy of the same to provided to the Appellant. The Appellant,
thereafter, aggrieved with the AA’s decision, filed the present petition dated 21.02.2011 before the
Commission complaining that the AA has refused to furnish desired information and has not provided
the signed copy of PIO’s reply as mentioned in his order.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant, referring to the background given in his RTIapplication, argued
that while according to the PIO’s reply the minimum fare from Sahad station to Kalyan station is Rs.
41/ only, the Ticket Checker had levied on him excess charges (the fare was Rs. 52/) for the said
journey from station Titwalla to Kalyan instead of from Shahad (where he had actually boarded the
train) to Kalyan . He stated that the Respondents have failed to give him any information which
would justify the said difference.
3. The Respondents clarified during the hearing that the TC had not charged the Appellant any excess
fare as the train fare in both the cases (either Titwalla to Kalyan or Sahad to Kalyan) is same i.e Rs.
52/ and that what they have told him in response to his RTIquery was the ‘base fare’ (i.e. Rs.41/)
which adds up to Rs.52/ after including certain surcharges.
4. In view of the clarification above, no further disclosure need be made with regard to the present
petition. It is, however, directed that the PIO shall formally communicate the above clarification to the
Appellant along with the breakup of total fare from both stations to Kalyan. Time – by 5th
September, 2011.
5. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Murlidhar Mahadev
Dalavi, Mahadev Smruti,
Zenda Naka Murbad,
AT Post & Taluka Murbad District,
Thane 421 401
2. The Appellate Authority
Central Railway
OSD, DRM office
Commercial Branch, CST,
Mumbai
3. Public Information Officer
Central Railway
O/o SR. DCM, DRM office
Commercial Branch, CST,
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 PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy
of the Commission’s decision, and (5) 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.