Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000066
Dated March 19, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Sunil Kumar Vishnoi
Name of the Public Authority : DRM Office
Northern Railway
Moradabad
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.8.8.09 with the PIO, Northern Railway,
Moradabad seeking information against 4 points related to inclusion of Shri Madan
Mohan, the Organization Commissioner ftrom Moradabad District in activities taken up
by Northern Railway Bharat Scouts and Guides. On not receiving any reply, the
Applicant filed an appeal dt.10.9.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request
for the information. The PIO replied on 25.9.09 furnishing point wise information. Not
satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.21.10.09 before CIC
stating that information provided is misleading and doubtful and that against point 4,
the details about Appellate Authority have not been provided.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for March 19, 2010.
3. Shri Govind Prasad, PIO, Harvinder Singh, Shri Rajesh Mehta, Head Clerk and Shri
D.K.Pankaj, Sr.Clerk represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was heard through audio conferencing.
Decision
5. The Respondent Shri Govind Prasad submitted that since the Appellant was seeking
information about a particular issue he assumed that the Appellate Authority being
referred to is the Appellate Authority dealing with that issue and had accordingly
provided the name of that AA. However, he later came to know that the Appellate
Authority about whom information was being sought is the AA designated under RTI
Act. The Appellant who was heard over the telephone reiterated his complaint about
details of AA not being provided to him and also expressed his doubt about the
correctness of information provided against point 4.
6. The Commission while drawing the attention of the Respondent to Section 7(3)(b) of
the RTI Act, holds that the PIO is liable to provide the details of the Appellate
Authority to whom the appeal may be preferred that not doing so tantamounts to
violation of the RTI Act. The Commission will be constrained to take appropriate action
for such lapses , in future.
7. The Commission after hearing the submissions made by both parties, directs the PIO
to provide an affidavit stating that information provided against points 2 and 4
is correct. The affidavit should reach the Commission with a copy to the Appellant by
20.4.10 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by
26.4.10.
8. The Commission directs the PIO to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per
day subject to a maximum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) should
not be levied on him for not responding to the RTI application within the mandatory
period. He may submit his written response to the Commission by 20.4.10.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Sunil Kumar Vishnoi
Advocate
R/o AL-58, Deen Dayal Nagar
Moradabad
2. The PIO
Northern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Moradabad Division
Moradabad
3. The Appellate Authority
Northern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Moradabad Division
Moradabad
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC