In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001848
Date of Hearing : October 21, 2011
Date of Decision : October 21, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Veer Prakash Singh
17/7 (D), Railway officers Colony,
Muir Road, Rajapur,
Allahabad 211 001
The Appellant was present at NIC VC facility at Allahabad.
Respondents
East Central Railway
Mugalsarai
U P
Represented by: Shri Mahendra Prasad, DPO & PIO and Shri L.K. Rai, OS (RTI Cell)--present at NIC VC
facility at Chandauli.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001848
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication dated 04.03.2010 with the PIO, East Central Railway,
Mugalsarai, enquiring about the accident which took place at Pole No. 673/30 in MugalsaraiSasaram
Section. He also wanted to know whether any ACP (Alarm Chain Pulling) had occurred in Train No.
2876 between Mugalsarai and Bhanua Station during the night of 23/24.10.2009, and if yes then how
long the train was allowed to stop there. The PIO, on 17.03.2010, informed the Applicant that they
have already furnished the same set of information to him vide their communications dated
17.02.2010 and 11.03.2010 in response to an earlier RTIapplication of his (dated 12.01.2010),
seeking same information. The Applicant, being unhappy with the PIO’s reply, filed his 1stappeal with
the Appellate Authority (AA) alleging that the reply given by the PIO is incorrect as it is contrary to
what has actually happened that night. The AA vide his decision dated 30.07.2011 dismissed the
Appellant’s 1stappeal recording that the PIO has furnished correct and complete information to the
Appellant. Being aggrieved with the AA’s decision, the Appellant filed the present petition dated
20.07.2011 before the Commission complaining that the Respondents are not providing him ‘the true
information’ corresponding to his RTIapplication.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the RespondentPIO stated that as per the information received by the
department concerned (viz., Commercial, Traffic, Safety), no such accident had taken place at the
place and the time the Appellant has mentioned in his RTIapplication. He (PIO), therefore,
expressed their inability to confirm the Appellant’s contention. He, however, mentioned that the office
of the Sr. DSO maintains a register which contains the entry of the reported accidents. The Appellant,
however, was not ready to believe what the PIO has stated here since, according to him, he had lost
his son in the said accident.
3. In view of the above, it is directed that the PIO shall file an affidavit before the Commission–with a
copy to the Appellant– affirming their position that the information sought by the Appellant is not
present in their records. The affidavit should reach the Commission as well as the Appellant by
15.11.2011. The PIO, along with the affidavit, should also send the copies of relevant pages of the
Register, maintained at Sr. DSO, regarding accidents, to the Appellant, as proof of the fact that no
information related to the accident as submitted by the Appellant, had taken place at the said pole on
23/24.10.2009 . Affidavit/information to be provided by 20 November, 2011.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Veer Prakash Singh
17/7 (D), Railway officers Colony,
Muir Road, Rajapur,
Allahabad 211 001
2. The Appellate Authority (RTI) &
ADRM
East Central Railway
Mugalsarai
U P
3. Public Information Officer &
Sr. DPO
East Central Railway
Mugalsarai
U P
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.