{"id":163689,"date":"2010-06-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-27T10:48:20","modified_gmt":"2018-06-27T05:18:20","slug":"mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010<\/div>\n
                          Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\n\n                                                                                   CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000589\n                                                                                   CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000587\n                                                                                   CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000588\n\n\n                                                                                       Dated\u00a0June\u00a04,\u00a02010\n\n\n\nName\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant                              :   Shri\u00a0Saidur\u00a0Rahman\n\n\nName\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority                       :   DRM\u00a0Office\n                                                       Northern\u00a0Railway,\u00a0Lucknow\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n
CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000589<\/p>\n
1.     The \u00a0Applicant \u00a0filed \u00a0 an \u00a0 RTI \u00a0application \u00a0 dt.27.8.09 \u00a0 with \u00a0the \u00a0 PIO, \u00a0 DRM \u00a0 Office, \u00a0 Northern\u00a0<\/p>\n
       Railway\u00a0Lucknow\u00a0seeking\u00a0information\u00a0against\u00a03\u00a0points\u00a0and\u00a0several\u00a0sub\u00a0points\u00a0including\u00a0<\/p>\n
       information\u00a0about\u00a0\u00a0power\u00a0static\u00a0of\u00a0all\u00a0bill\u00a0units,\u00a0for\u00a01.8.09;\u00a0information\u00a0related\u00a0to\u00a0one\u00a0Shri\u00a0<\/p>\n
       Ram\u00a0Akbal\u00a0Yadav\u00a0including\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0muster\u00a0roll,\u00a0paid\u00a0vouchers,\u00a0inspection\u00a0of\u00a0duty\u00a0<\/p>\n
       register,\u00a0leave\u00a0records\u00a0etc.\u00a0for\u00a0various\u00a0periods;\u00a0information\u00a0related\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0transfer\u00a0of\u00a0one\u00a0<\/p>\n
       Shri\u00a0Rajendra\u00a0Kumar\u00a0etc.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO\u00a0replied\u00a0on\u00a018.9.09\u00a0furnishing\u00a0point\u00a0wise\u00a0information\u00a0<\/p>\n
       and\u00a0also\u00a0inviting\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0\u00a0to\u00a0inspect\u00a0files\/records\u00a0on\u00a026.9.09.\u00a0Being\u00a0aggrieved\u00a0with\u00a0<\/p>\n
       the\u00a0reply\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0filed\u00a0an\u00a0appeal\u00a0dt.22.10.09\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0<\/p>\n
       all\u00a0the\u00a0files\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0placed\u00a0before\u00a0him\u00a0for\u00a0inspection.\u00a0On\u00a0not\u00a0receiving\u00a0any\u00a0reply\u00a0<\/p>\n
       from\u00a0the\u00a0AA,\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0\u00a0filed\u00a0a\u00a0second\u00a0appeal\u00a0dt.23.2.10\u00a0reiterating\u00a0his\u00a0contention\u00a0as\u00a0<\/p>\n
       given\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\nCIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000587<\/p>\n
2.     The\u00a0Applicant\u00a0filed\u00a0an\u00a0RTI\u00a0application\u00a0dt.28.10.09\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0DRM\u00a0Office,\u00a0Northern\u00a0<\/p>\n
       Railway, \u00a0 Lucknow \u00a0 seeking \u00a0 information \u00a0 against \u00a0 5 \u00a0 points \u00a0 and \u00a0 several \u00a0 sub \u00a0 points \u00a0 with\u00a0
\n       regard \u00a0 to \u00a0 one \u00a0 Shri \u00a0 Parvez \u00a0 Alam \u00a0 including \u00a0 the \u00a0 rule \u00a0 under \u00a0 which \u00a0 he \u00a0 was \u00a0 allowed \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
      defence \u00a0 helper \u00a0 in \u00a0 one \u00a0 case \u00a0 and \u00a0 was \u00a0 not \u00a0 allowed \u00a0 in \u00a0 another \u00a0 case, \u00a0 details \u00a0 of \u00a0 any\u00a0<\/p>\n
      departmental\u00a0action\u00a0pending\u00a0against\u00a0Shri\u00a0Alam\u00a0etc.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO\u00a0replied\u00a0on\u00a01.12.09\u00a0furnishing\u00a0<\/p>\n
      point \u00a0 wise \u00a0 information. \u00a0 Not \u00a0 satisfied \u00a0 with \u00a0 the \u00a0 reply, \u00a0 the \u00a0 Applicant \u00a0 filed \u00a0 an \u00a0 appeal\u00a0<\/p>\n
      dt.15.12.09\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0commenting\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0provided.\u00a0On\u00a0not\u00a0<\/p>\n
      receiving\u00a0any\u00a0reply,\u00a0he\u00a0filed\u00a0a\u00a0second\u00a0appeal\u00a0dt.23.2.10\u00a0before\u00a0CIC.<\/p>\n
CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000588<\/p>\n
3.    The \u00a0 Applicant \u00a0 filed \u00a0 an \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 application \u00a0 dt.6.8.09 \u00a0 with \u00a0 the \u00a0 PIO, \u00a0 DRM \u00a0 Office, \u00a0 Northern\u00a0<\/p>\n
      Railway,\u00a0Lucknow\u00a0seeking\u00a0information\u00a0related\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0selection\u00a0of\u00a0Loco\u00a0Inspector\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
      Divisional\u00a0Office\u00a0including\u00a0names\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0candidates,\u00a0foot\u00a0plate\u00a0working,\u00a0those\u00a0who\u00a0have\u00a0<\/p>\n
      gone\u00a0on\u00a0transfer\u00a0for\u00a0Loco\u00a0Inspector\u00a0selection\u00a0from\u00a0outside\u00a0Lucknow\u00a0etc.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO\u00a0replied\u00a0<\/p>\n
      on\u00a04.9.09\u00a0furnishing\u00a0point\u00a0wise\u00a0information.\u00a0Not\u00a0satisfied\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0reply,\u00a0the\u00a0 \u00a0Applicant\u00a0<\/p>\n
      filed\u00a0an\u00a0appeal\u00a0dt.22.10.09\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0commenting\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0<\/p>\n
      provided.\u00a0The\u00a0appeal\u00a0was\u00a0responded\u00a0to\u00a0by\u00a0Sr.DPO\u00a0vide\u00a0his\u00a0letter\u00a0dt.10.11.09\u00a0.\u00a0The\u00a0AA\u00a0<\/p>\n
      too\u00a0provided\u00a0point\u00a0wise\u00a0information.\u00a0Being\u00a0aggrieved\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0reply,\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0filed\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n
      second\u00a0appeal\u00a0dt.23.2.10\u00a0before\u00a0CIC\u00a0requesting\u00a0for\u00a0information\u00a0against\u00a0points\u00a04\u00a0and\u00a05.<\/p>\n
4.    The\u00a0Bench\u00a0of\u00a0Mrs.\u00a0Annapurna\u00a0Dixit,\u00a0Information\u00a0Commissioner,\u00a0scheduled\u00a0the\u00a0hearing\u00a0<\/p>\n
      for\u00a0June\u00a04,\u00a02010\u00a0through\u00a0video\u00a0conferencing.\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    Shri\u00a0Prakash,\u00a0PIO;\u00a0Shri\u00a0Neeraj\u00a0Gupta,\u00a0Sr.DME\u00a0and\u00a0Shri\u00a0S.K.Singh,\u00a0OS\u00a0representing\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
      Public\u00a0Authority\u00a0were\u00a0present\u00a0along\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0at\u00a0NIC\u00a0Studio,\u00a0Lucknow.<\/p>\n
Decision<\/p>\n
CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000589<\/p>\n
6.    The\u00a0Respondent\u00a0submitted\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0\u00a0had\u00a0inspected\u00a0all\u00a0the\u00a0records\u00a0on\u00a026.9.09\u00a0<\/p>\n
      and\u00a0\u00a0was\u00a0provided\u00a0with\u00a025\u00a0pages\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0on\u00a011.11.09.\u00a0He\u00a0then\u00a0inspected\u00a0the\u00a0files\u00a0
\n       again \u00a0 on \u00a0 26.11.09. \u00a0 The \u00a0 Respondent \u00a0 further \u00a0 stated \u00a0 that \u00a0 there \u00a0 are \u00a0 no \u00a0 other \u00a0 files \u00a0 for\u00a0<\/p>\n
      inspection \u00a0 other \u00a0 than \u00a0 the \u00a0 ones\u00a0 the \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 \u00a0 had \u00a0 already \u00a0 inspected. \u00a0 \u00a0 The \u00a0 Appellant\u00a0<\/p>\n
      submitted \u00a0 that \u00a0 he \u00a0 had \u00a0 sought \u00a0 213 \u00a0 pages \u00a0 after \u00a0 the \u00a0 second \u00a0 inspection \u00a0 which \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
      Respondents\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0furnished\u00a0so\u00a0far.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Respondent\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0other\u00a0hand\u00a0submitted\u00a0that\u00a0<\/p>\n
      copies \u00a0 of \u00a0 documents \u00a0 were \u00a0 not \u00a0 furnished \u00a0 since \u00a0 the \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 had \u00a0 not \u00a0 deposited \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
      photocopying\u00a0charges.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    The\u00a0Commission\u00a0after\u00a0hearing\u00a0both\u00a0sides\u00a0directs\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0as\u00a0follows:<\/p>\n
      i)        to\u00a0provide\u00a0an\u00a0affidavit\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0with\u00a0a\u00a0copy\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0<\/p>\n
      all\u00a0the\u00a0files\u00a0relating\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0request\u00a0had\u00a0been\u00a0inspected\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0\u00a0(quote\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
      date\u00a0of\u00a0inspection\u00a0and\u00a0file\u00a0no.\u00a0which\u00a0had\u00a0been\u00a0inspected)\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0there\u00a0are\u00a0no\u00a0other\u00a0<\/p>\n
      files\u00a0available\u00a0for\u00a0inspection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ii)       to\u00a0provide\u00a0213\u00a0pages\u00a0sought\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0free\u00a0of\u00a0cost\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
8.    The\u00a0affidavit\u00a0should\u00a0reach\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0 \u00a0by\u00a04.7.10\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0 \u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
      submit\u00a0a\u00a0compliance\u00a0report\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0\u00a0by\u00a011.7.10.<\/p>\n
CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000587<\/p>\n
9.    The\u00a0Respondents\u00a0submitted\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0had\u00a0replied\u00a0on\u00a016.3.09\u00a0informing\u00a0<\/p>\n
      the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0has\u00a0already\u00a0been\u00a0provided\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0is\u00a0at\u00a0present\u00a0<\/p>\n
      sub \u00a0 judice. \u00a0 \u00a0 The \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0other\u00a0 hand\u00a0 maintained \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 decision \u00a0 has\u00a0 been\u00a0<\/p>\n
      pronounced \u00a0which\u00a0the \u00a0Respondents\u00a0denied \u00a0by\u00a0 stating \u00a0that\u00a0 counter\u00a0affidavit\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0<\/p>\n
      filed.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Respondent\u00a0further\u00a0submitted\u00a0that\u00a0no\u00a0departmental\u00a0action\u00a0is\u00a0pending\u00a0against\u00a0<\/p>\n
      Shri\u00a0Alam.\u00a0\u00a0When\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0queried\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0where\u00a0the\u00a0relevant\u00a0files\u00a0are,\u00a0Respondent\u00a0<\/p>\n
      submitted\u00a0that\u00a0some\u00a0are\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0court\u00a0and\u00a0while\u00a0others\u00a0are\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Personnel\u00a0Branch.\u00a0<\/p>\n
      The \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 then \u00a0 requested \u00a0 that \u00a0 he \u00a0 may \u00a0 only \u00a0 \u00a0 be \u00a0 provided \u00a0 with \u00a0 the \u00a0 copy \u00a0 of \u00a0 rules\u00a0<\/p>\n
      regarding\u00a0Defence\u00a0Helper.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   \u00a0 The\u00a0Commission\u00a0accordingly\u00a0directs\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0a\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0rule\u00a0regarding\u00a0<\/p>\n
      Defence\u00a0Helper\u00a0by\u00a04.7.10.\n<\/p>\n
 CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000588<\/p>\n
11.     During\u00a0the\u00a0hearing\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0\u00a0sought\u00a0information\u00a0against\u00a0point\u00a03\u00a0related\u00a0to\u00a0documents\u00a0<\/p>\n
        indication\u00a0completion\u00a0of\u00a0foot\u00a0plate\u00a0working.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly,\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0directs\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0<\/p>\n
        to\u00a0allow\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0to\u00a0inspect\u00a0relevant\u00a0files\u00a0of\u00a0selected\/posted\u00a0staff\u00a0\u00a0indicating\u00a0details\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
        foot\u00a0plate\u00a0working\u00a0including\u00a0mileage\u00a0 \u00a0sheets\u00a0General\u00a0164(ADI\u00a0Register\u00a0CTR\u00a0etc.\u00a0on\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n
        mutually\u00a0convenient\u00a0date\u00a0and\u00a0time.\u00a0The\u00a0Commission\u00a0also\u00a0observed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0is\u00a0<\/p>\n
        a\u00a0habitual\u00a0information\u00a0seeker\u00a0under\u00a0RTI\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0provided\u00a0with\u00a0hundreds\u00a0pages\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
        information,\u00a0\u00a0free\u00a0of\u00a0cost.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Commission,\u00a0\u00a0as\u00a0an\u00a0environment\u00a0friendly\u00a0measure,\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0<\/p>\n
        also\u00a0\u00a0keeping\u00a0in\u00a0view\u00a0the\u00a0financial\u00a0implications\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority,\u00a0 \u00a0directs\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Appellant\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0with\u00a050\u00a0pages\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0free\u00a0of\u00a0cost\u00a0and\u00a0to\u00a0charge\u00a0him\u00a0for\u00a0<\/p>\n
        copies\u00a0beyond\u00a050\u00a0pages\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0rate\u00a0of\u00a0Rs.2\/\u00ad\u00a0per\u00a0page.\u00a0The\u00a0inspection\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0completed\u00a0<\/p>\n
        and\u00a0information\u00a0provided\u00a0by\u00a04.7.10.\u00a0The\u00a0Appellant\u00a0\u00a0to\u00a0submit\u00a0a\u00a0compliance\u00a0report\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Commission\u00a0\u00a0by\u00a011.7.10.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.     The\u00a0appeals\u00a0are\u00a0accordingly\u00a0disposed\u00a0of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                   \u00a0(Annapurna\u00a0Dixit)
\n                                                                           Information\u00a0Commissioner
\nAuthenticated\u00a0true\u00a0copy:\n<\/p>\n
(G.Subramanian)
\nDeputy\u00a0Registrar<\/p>\n
Cc:\n<\/p>\n
1.      Shri\u00a0Saidur\u00a0Rahman
\n        R\/o\u00a0Running\u00a0Shed\u00a0Colony
\n        L.D\u00ad14A,\u00a0Terhi\u00a0Pulia
\n        Alam\u00a0Bagh
\n        Lucknow\u00a0226\u00a0005<\/p>\n
2.      The\u00a0PIO
\n      Northern\u00a0Railway
\n     Divisional\u00a0Railway\u00a0Manager’s\u00a0Office
\n     Lucknow\u00a0Division,\u00a0Hazratganj
\n     Lucknow<\/p>\n
3.   The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority
\n     Northern\u00a0Railway
\n     Divisional\u00a0Railway\u00a0Manager’s\u00a0Office
\n     Lucknow\u00a0Division,\u00a0Hazratganj
\n     Lucknow<\/p>\n
4.   Officer\u00a0incharge,\u00a0NIC<\/p>\n
5.   Press\u00a0E\u00a0Group,\u00a0CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010 Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000589 CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000587 CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000588 Dated\u00a0June\u00a04,\u00a02010 Name\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant : Shri\u00a0Saidur\u00a0Rahman Name\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority : DRM\u00a0Office Northern\u00a0Railway,\u00a0Lucknow Background CIC\/AD\/A\/2010\/000589 1. The \u00a0Applicant \u00a0filed \u00a0 an \u00a0 RTI \u00a0application \u00a0 dt.27.8.09 \u00a0 with \u00a0the \u00a0 PIO, \u00a0 DRM \u00a0 Office, \u00a0 Northern\u00a0 Railway\u00a0Lucknow\u00a0seeking\u00a0information\u00a0against\u00a03\u00a0points\u00a0and\u00a0several\u00a0sub\u00a0points\u00a0including\u00a0 information\u00a0about\u00a0\u00a0power\u00a0static\u00a0of\u00a0all\u00a0bill\u00a0units,\u00a0for\u00a01.8.09;\u00a0information\u00a0related\u00a0to\u00a0one\u00a0Shri\u00a0 Ram\u00a0Akbal\u00a0Yadav\u00a0including\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0muster\u00a0roll,\u00a0paid\u00a0vouchers,\u00a0inspection\u00a0of\u00a0duty\u00a0 register,\u00a0leave\u00a0records\u00a0etc.\u00a0for\u00a0various\u00a0periods;\u00a0information\u00a0related\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0transfer\u00a0of\u00a0one\u00a0 Shri\u00a0Rajendra\u00a0Kumar\u00a0etc.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO\u00a0replied\u00a0on\u00a018.9.09\u00a0furnishing\u00a0point\u00a0wise\u00a0information\u00a0 and\u00a0also\u00a0inviting\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0\u00a0to\u00a0inspect\u00a0files\/records\u00a0on\u00a026.9.09.\u00a0Being\u00a0aggrieved\u00a0with\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163689","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-27T05:18:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-27T05:18:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":977,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-27T05:18:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-27T05:18:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-27T05:18:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010"},"wordCount":977,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010","name":"Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-27T05:18:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saidur-rehman-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 4 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163689","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=163689"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163689\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163689"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163689"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163689"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}