In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001126
Date of Hearing : August 19, 2011
Date of Decision : August 19, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Omprakash Kashiram
H.No.03/16, Amol Apartment
Waldhuni
Kalyan 421 301
The Applicant was not present during the hearing
Respondents
Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Commercial Branch, CST
Mumbai
Represented by : None
Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Mumbai Central, Churchgate
Mumbai
Represented by : Shri Gopalakrishna, PIO
Shri S.K.Jain, Appellate Authority & ADRM
NIC Studio, Mumbai
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001126
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.7.1.11 with the PIO, Central Railway, Mumbai seeking the
total quantity/Nos. of local trains of 9 and 12 cars in service of CR, WR Harbour line, Trans Harbour
line. He also sought year wise increase in the quantity/No. of trains in a given format for the period
1960 to 2011. Shri Atul Rane, PIO, Central Railway replied on 2.2.11 and the PIO, Western Railway
on 4.2.11 providing the information. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.12.2.11 with the Appellate
Authority stating that no information has been received by him. Shri Ved Prakash, Appellate
Authority, Central Railway replied on 11.3.11 and Shri A.K.Jha, Appellate Authority, Western Railway
replied on 10.3.11 informing the Applicant about the replies already sent. Being aggrieved with the
replies, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.2.4.11 before CIC suggesting a number of measures
that should be taken up by the railways for improving its functioning and requesting the Commission
to direct the Railways to take up the suggestions. He also sought information about actual numbers of
9/12 cars trains which are running since 1960 . He stated that he has been given about the total
number of trips up and down (services) made by trains which is not what he is seeking.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that information has been sought starting from 1960
till date which makes the information voluminous in nature. Also the information that the Appellant is
seeking with regard to the No. of trains is not being maintained by the Division since only the number
of services by the said trains is available. They however stated that they would be happy to compile
the information and provide the same to the Appellant if the number of years is reduced to2 or 3
years.
3. In the light of the submission by the Respondents, the Commission directs the Appellant to seek the
required information for a specific no. of years, say for the last 3 to 4 years so that information can be
compiled and furnished to him in the format provided by him. Alternately, the Appellant, if he so
desires, may be allowed to inspect the records, on a mutually convenient date/s so that he can
compile the information for himself . The PIO is directed to provide the Appellant with attested copies
of documents identified by him, only 50 pages free of cost and the rest at Rs.2/ per page. The
information in any event to be provided by 25.9.11.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Omprakash Kashiram
H.No.03/16, Amol Apartment
Waldhuni
Kalyan 421 301
2. The Public Information Officer
Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Commercial Branch, CST
Mumbai
3. The Public Information Officer
Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Mumbai Central, 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.