In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
F.NO. CIC/AD/A/2011/001452
Date of Hearing : August 19, 2011
Date of Decision : August 19, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri S.K. Tiwari
H.No. 16/791,
Santoshi Ma Marg, Madhinath,
Bareilly 243 001
The Appellant was not present.
Respondents
North Eastern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Izzat Nagar
Bareilly
Represented by: Shri Ram Singh, Sr. DMM, Shri Suresh Majhi, Sr. DPO and Shri B.K. Dwivedi, APIO
--present at NIC VC facility at Bareilly.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001452
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 01.07.2009, filed with the PIO, North Eastern
Railway, Bareilly, sought 3 pieces of information in relation to his promotion case in the public
authority. The PIO, on 27.07.2009, forwarded a reply dated 23.07.2009 of Sr. DPO to the Applicant.
The Sr. DPO through this reply had informed the Applicant that his queries at item nos. 1 & 2 are in
the nature of seeking clarifications from the public authority which do not come under the definition of
information as given in Section 2(f) of the RTIAct. As regards query at item no. 3, he expressed his
inability to give any information to the Applicant as it was not clear to him from the text of the query as
to what document the Applicant is looking for. The Applicant, being aggrieved with the PIO’s reply,
filed his 1stappeal (dated 26.08.2009) before the Appellate Authority which the AA apparently had not
decided. The Appellant thereafter filed the present petition dated 27.07.2010 requesting the
Commission to consider his appeal for disclosure of information. He also explained the reasons for
delay, on his part, in filing the appeal before the Commission which were found to be credible enough
to admit his appeal.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant’s RTIqueries were discussed as given below:
Item No. 1:
3. The Appellant asked for information about issuance of any departmental communication to him in
response to his letter dated 29.01.2009 to the public authority. The Respondents during the hearing
denied the receipt of the said letter from the Appellant.
Since the letter itself has not admittedly been received by the Respondents, question of its response
does not arise. The Appellant, nevertheless, may resubmit a copy of the same to the Respondents for
taking appropriate action at their end which is recommended to be taken by them preferably within 1
month of receipt of such letter from the Appellant. The Appellant has 1 week time from the date of
receipt of this order to resubmit his letter to the Respondents, if he so wishes.
Item No. 2:
4. The information relating to this item of information is ready with the Respondents which they also had
brought with them to the hearing to hand over to the Appellant. Since the Appellant was not there for
the hearing, it was directed that the Respondents immediately on reaching their office send this
information to the Appellant by speed post.
Item No. 3:
5. The Appellant desired for a copy of Rule under which he was not considered for seniority based
promotion, which his juniors had already got. The Respondent, however, during the hearing, denied
the existence of any such Rule with the public authority.
The above answer of the Respondents completes the disclosure requirement with regard to this
query. It is accordingly directed that the PIO, within 2 weeks of receipt of this order, should formally
communicate his above answer to the Appellant.
6. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri S.K. Tiwari
H.No. 16/791,
Santoshi Ma Marg, Madhinath,
Bareilly 243 001
2. The Appellate Authority
North Eastern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Izzat Nagar
Bareilly
3. Public Information Officer
North Eastern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Izzat Nagar
Bareilly
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.