In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000358
Date of Hearing : March 14, 2011
Date of Decision : March 14, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Sunil Kumar
C/o P C Sharma, Advocate,
Chowk Regent Cinema,
Amritsar 143 00605
The Appellant was not present.
Respondents
Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Ferozpur Division
Ferozpur
Represented by: Shri G.B. Mishra, Shri Bhagat Singh Mahal, Ch. DMS and Shri Ombir Singh, AOmE/P
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000358
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication with the PIO, Northern Railway, Ferozpur on 18.08.2010
seeking two pieces of information which he described as detail of amount on account of under rest
allowance paid for the period 01.01.2001 to 3.06.2010 to the a] Loco Running staff; and b] Guards
along with their names, train number, month wise bill prepared by the concerned employee.
2. In response to the above application, the Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer (O&F), through his letter
dated 27.09.2010, requested the Applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 20/ towards photocopying
charges of the 10 pages of information corresponding to item a] of his application. As for the
information in respect of item b], he informed that it pertained to the Traffic Department. The
Applicant accordingly remitted the said amount on 25.09.2010. Thereafter, the Applicant received
another letter dated 12.10.2010 which was signed by an unknown signatory on behalf of the
Divisional Optns. Manager NR/Firozpur, advising him to approach the Bill Section of Divisional
office/NR, Firozpur for receiving the information in respect of the guards (item b) as the details sought
by him under this head have been submitted to the said office by each guard.
3. The Applicant, meanwhile filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority (AA) on 07.10.2010 which,
according to the Applicant, was not replied to by the AA. The Applicant, thereafter, approached the
Commission in 2ndappeal on 24.11.2010 alleging that the reply furnished to him in respect of item a]
does not reveal the information that has been sought and that the amount mentioned therein is totally
against the ‘Safety Rules’. Further, the inspection of relevant bills was not allowed to him as
requested by him in his 1stappeal. As regards item b], he alleged that the reply furnished to him is
misleading, untrue and uncalled for and also has not been signed by the designated officer under the
RTIAct which shows the malicious intention towards the Applicant .
Decision
4. The Respondents, during the hearing, stated that they have not received the Appellant’s 1stappeal
dated 07.10.2010 and thus could not respond to it. They, however, informed the Commission that
they had furnished both items of information (i.e. Loco running staff (item a) as well as Guards (item
b)) to the Appellant on 27.09.2010 and12.10.2010 respectively.
5. Upon perusing the records and after hearing the Respondents, it is noted that the Appellant’s
allegation (para 3 above) that the amount mentioned in the Respondent’s reply is against the ‘safety
rules’ is not a matter which can be examined under the provisions of the RTIAct as the ‘information’
(i.e. amount) in its original form has already been furnished to the Appellant. This completes the
requirement of the disclosure of the information under the RTIAct and thus warrants no further
scrutiny. Nevertheless, as requested by the Applicant, the PIO shall allow him to inspect the relevant
bills/ records relating to the item a) as well as the item b of his RTIapplication. To carry out this
exercise, the PIO should issue a notice to the Appellant indicating therein a date, time and place in
advance. This is to be completed by 10.04.2011.
6. As regards the Applicant’s complaint against the Divisional Optns. Manager NR/Firozpur who had
failed to sign his reply dated 12.10.2010 and had allowed somebody else to sign on it by putting the
word ‘for’, the Commission finds it highly objectionable on the part of the said officer who failed to
comply with such an elementary requirement of the statute. It is, therefore, directed that the head of
the department should issue a ‘recordable warning’ to this officer for his negligence and submit a
compliance report to the Commission by 24.03.2011.
7. The appeal disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc
1. Shri Sunil Kumar
C/o P C Sharma, Advocate,
Chowk Regent Cinema,
Amritsar 143 00605
2. The Appellate Authority
Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Ferozpur Division
Ferozpur
3. The Public Information Officer
International Institute of Population Science
Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Ferozpur Division
Ferozpur
4. Officer Incharge, NIC