Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000603
Date: 8th June, 2010
Name of the Appellant : Mr. S. Murali
Name of the Public Authority : Southern Railways, HQ Office
Personnel Branch, Chennai
Background
:
1. Mr. S Murali from Tamil Nadu filed an RTI application on 29.12.2009 containing six questions seeking
information related to his various appeals filed with different Authorities as also a copy of the seniority list,
list of 86 Course completed Act Apprentices engaged as substitutes, copies of various letters etc. The
Applicant further requested for information on present status of his petition . The PIO in his letter dated
09.02.2010 submitted that with regard to points 1 , 2 and 6 of the RTI application, a reply had been sent by
the APO/HQ to the General Manager/CPO vide letter dated 27.1.10. He also stated that against points 6 to
9 no information could be provided since the documents related to the year 1998 were not available.
Dissatisfied by the Response, the Applicant filed his First appeal with the Appellate Authority on 25.01.2010
stating that the information provided was not complete and further requested for detailed information along
with the copies of letters. The First Appellate Authority in his letter dated 16.02.2010 provided the copy of the
CPO/MAS’s letter dated 18.10.06 and accordingly disposed the appeal. Still not satisfied, the Appellant filed
the Second appeal before the Commission on 06.03.2010 requesting the Commission to provide him with
the information.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit scheduled the hearing for 8th June, 2010.
3. Mr. Abdul Nasir PIO and Mr. Govind Rajan APIO represented the Public Authority and were heard through
Video Conferencing.
4. The Appellant was present and was also heard through Video Conferencing.
Decision:
5. During the hearing the Commission noted that the Appellant had sought entirely new information in his
Second Appeal to the Commission, containing 96 questions. Taking recourse to Section 6(1) of the RTI Act,
the Commission advises the Appellant to make ‘a’ request through a fresh RTI application and to focus on
one issue while making the application. However to ensure the proper delivery of Justice, the Commissionreviewed the RTI application of the Appellant and the information provided by the Respondents.
6. After hearing both the parties, the Commission noted that the Appellant has not sought any information in the
Points 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI application. With regard to Point 4, the Respondents submitted that the
information sought in the RTI application belonged to the year 1998 and was not available, the same being
more than 10 years old. The Commission directs the Public Authority to provide an Affidavit to the
Commission along with a copy to the Appellant stating that the records have been weeded out as per the
schedule for preservation records and also to enclose a copy of the rules for preservation of records along
with the affidavit.
7. With regard to Point 6 of the RTI application, the Respondent submitted that no action was taken on the
petition filed by the Appellant as the Appellant is already aware of the fact that in 1998 the Appellant had
appeared for an apprentice Exam for which he was overage by four years as per the Apprentice Act, and
hence was not selected.
8. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated True copy to:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. S Murali
No3 Upstairs, North Street,
Thangeswari Nagar, Ponmalai,
Trichy, Tamil Nadu
2. The Public Information Officer
Southern Railway
Headquarters Office
Personnel Branch
Chennai 600003
3. The Appellate Authority
Southern Railway
Headquarters Office
Personnel Branch
Chennai 600003
4. Officer in Charge, NIC
5. Press E Group