Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.


Central Information Commission
Mr.S C Khanna vs Northern Railway on 14 September, 2011
                      In the Central Information Commission 
                                                 at
                                           New Delhi

                                                                   File No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000420­AD


Date of Hearing :  September 14, 2011

Date of Decision :  September 14, 2011



Parties:  



Complainant


Shri S.C. Khanna
H.No. WB/ 248, Ali Mohalla, 
Jalandhar City, 
Punjab 144 001

The Complainant was heard through audio conference.

Respondents 


Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager,
Ferozpur Division
Ferozpur

Represented by: Shri Nathu Ram. Sr. DMM and Shri R.V. Singh, Sr. DSO

                   Information Commissioner     :   Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
                       In the Central Information Commission 
                                                            at
                                                    New Delhi
                                                                                   File No: CIC/SG/C/2009/000420­AD
                                                         ORDER

Background

1. The   Applicant   filed   his   RTI­application  with  the  PIO,  Northern  Railway,  Ferozpur  on  20.08.2008 

seeking two pieces of information about distribution of safety awards to employees after retirement in 

2007. Since the Applicant did not receive any reply from the PIO within the stipulated time period, he 

filed   his   1st­appeal   with   the   Appellate   Authority   on   03.10.2008.   This   appeal   too,   however,   went 

unheeded.   The   Complainant   therefore   filed   a   complaint   petition   dated   05.05.2009   before   the 

Commission which the Commission decided through its order dated 13.05.2009 directing the PIO to 

provide the information to the Complainant free of cost. It also asked the PIO to give an explanation 

for not supplying the information to the Complainant within the prescribed time limit. The Complainant 

thereafter on 02.012.2009 further approached the Commission complaining that the said order of the 

Commission has not been complied with by the PIO.

Decision

2. During the hearing, the Respondents produced a copy of their reply dated 25.11.2008 by which they 

had given complete information to the Complainant. The Complainant, who was heard on phone, did 

not complain about the quality of information he has received from the Respondents. He however 

demanded   that   the   penal   proceedings   be   initiated   against   the   PIO   for   delaying   the   supply   of 

information to him. 

3. Since the information has been completely furnished to the Complainant, no further disclosure is 

needed.   As   regards  explanation  of  the  PIO  for  delayed  supply  of  information  which  he  has  not 

apparently   submitted   to   the   Commission,   it   is   directed   that   he   shall   submit   the   same   to   the 

Commission by 10.10.2011. 

4. Complaint is disposed of with the above directions. 

(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy 

(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar 

Cc:

1. Shri S.C. Khanna
H.No. WB/ 248, Ali Mohalla, 
Jalandhar City, 
Punjab 144 001

2. The Appellate Authority     
Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager,
Ferozpur Division
Ferozpur

3. Public Information Officer & 
Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager,
Ferozpur Division
Ferozpur

4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant 
may   file   a   formal   complaint   with   the  Commission   under  Section   18(1)   of   the  RTI­Act,  giving   (1)   copy   of   RTI­
application,   (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 may indicate, what information has not been provided.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

89 queries in 0.160 seconds.