Central Information Commission
CIC/MA/C/2009/900339
Dated April 15, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Santosh Kumar
Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of Railways
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 25.03.2009 seeking information about
promotional rules, selection process, rules relating to the disabled etc. The Respondent
APIOI vide communication dated 27.04.2009 informed the Applicant that the information
as sought by him was ready for dispatch and that the Applicant must deposit the requisite
fees of Rs. 38/ for the supply of the information. The Applicant deposited Rs. 40/ with
the RTI Cell, Railway Board, New Delhi alongwith his covering letter dated 02.05.2009.
Despite the deposit of the fees when the Applicant failed to receive the information, he
filed the instant Complaint before the Central Information Commission on 09.07.2009.
2. The Central Information Commission issued a notice dated 26.02.2010 directing PIO to
provide the information and to show cause and explain in writing as to why a penalty of
Rs. 25,000/ for the delay in supply of information may not be imposed upon the PIO.
3. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for April 15, 2010.
4. Shri R D Choudhury, Executive Director, Establishment, Mr. Koshy Thomas, Jt. Director,
PC II/APIOI, Sh. D V Rao, JDE (N)/ Deemed PIO and Mr. V K Samuel, APIO III
represented the Public Authority.
5. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
6. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted their communication dated 15.04.2010
explaining that an unsigned RTI application dated 25.03.2009 had been received at the
office of the Respondent and was registered as RTI Cell ID No. 3014 dated 01.04.2009.
Since most of the 11 queries pertained to the Establishment Department, therefore, the
Application was sent by the RTI Cell to the APIOI, who in turn marked it to the
concerned Nodal Officer. The detailed submission of the Respondent also indicates that
10 of the 11 queries required locating various Establishment circulars and Files/papers.
Upon collection of the information as sought by the Complainant, the Respondent APIOI
sent a letter dated 27.04.2009 to the Complainant requesting the Complainant to deposit
the requisite fees of Rs. 38/. The application was marked to the APIOIII on the same
date and he responded by furnishing information about the query number 11. The Central
Registry records indicate receipt of the fees on 14.05.2009 and confirmation thereof on
25.05.2009. However subsequently, the concerned file got misplaced, as admitted by the
Respondent during the hearing. It was sent along with an other file inadvertently to some
other Section.
7. The file was subsequently traced back, and when the same was received, tied up with
some other file of the Establishment Department, on 08.07.2009, the final reply was sent
to the Complainant on the same date. Thereafter the Complainant filed a First Appeal
dated 20.08.2009 even while the Complaint was filed before the CIC on 09.07.2009. The
First Appeal is not on record with the CIC. The First Appeal was registered on 07.09.2009
by the Respondent and the complete information as sught in the Appeal, was provided
again by the Appellate Authority on 30.09.2009. No further grievance and/or complaint
has been received thereafter either by the Central Information Commission or the
Respondent from the Complainant.
8. Since information has already been provided, no cause of action survives in the case. In
so far as the question of delay between 25.05.2009 and 08.07.2009 in furnishing of the
information is concerned, it is evident that the same was not intentional nor the delay
caused with any malafide. The File had admittedly got misplaced by human error, which
is not completely opposed to reasonability. The error on the part of the Respondent of
having inadvertently misplaced the file is found justifiable from the records and file
notings produced before the Commission and the explanation given hereinabove. It is
also noted that the information as sought by the Complainant has already been provided,
9. The case is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy. Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Santosh Kumar
Operating Department
General Manager’s Office
West Central Railway, Indira Mkt.
Jabalpur 482068
2. The PIO
Ministry of Railways
O/o the Executive Director (EN) & CPIO1
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
3. Officer in charge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC