Central Information Commission Judgements

Saiyed Majid Ahmad vs East Central Railway on 11 June, 2009

Central Information Commission
Saiyed Majid Ahmad vs East Central Railway on 11 June, 2009
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
                  Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
                                  Tel: + 91 11 26161796

                                                 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000945/3664
                                                        Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000945
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                         :      Saiyed Majid Ahmad,
                                         Miyan Bag Post-Sonpur,
                                         Dist-Chhapra (Bihar),

Respondent                        :      Kumar Manavendra,
                                         Deputy General Manager
                                         (Law),
                                         East Central Railway,

Office of the General Manager (Law.)
9th Floor, Biscomaun Tower, Patna

RTI application filed on : 19.12.2008
PIO replied : 23.12.2008
First Appeal filed on : 12.01.2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 24/04/2009

Information Sought:

The Appellant sought for information regarding action taken on letter date 05.12.2007
addressed to Deputy General Manager (law), East Central Railway.

The reply of PIO:

The PIO mentioned in his reply that the subject of the letter was not concerned with this
office. Therefore this letter had been forwarded can be received from that office. Thus, there
was no document regarding the Appellant’s case in PIO’s office.

Grounds for First Appeal:

Appellant had mentioned in his first appeal that letter dated 06.11.2007 was incomplete and
neither according to rule. In letter dated 06.11.2007 sent by East Central Railway, of
Appellant did not come under RTI Act, 2005. However letter was submitted to concerned
department.

The First Appellate Authority ordered:
ADRM cum Appellate Authority, ECR/ Samastipur was requested to take necessary action
for disposal of the case under RTI Act by B. N. Singh, Sr.ADGM & CPIO, Hajipur.

Grounds for second Appeal:

The Appellant mentioned that nothing had been done despite of first Appeal. He requested to
order to provide desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:

Appellant : Mr. Saiyed Khalid Ahmad
Respondent : Mr. O.P.Srivastava and Mr. A.K.Dwivedi on behalf of PIO Mr. Kumar
Manvender
The appellant wants STDR to be replaced by another STDR. He is not seeking any
information but wanting the public authority to take an action in a particular manner. This is
not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

The Appeal is dismissed.

This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section
7(6) of RTI, Act, 2005.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
11 June 2009

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)

(Rnj)