Central Information Commission
Dhananjay Kumar Roy vs Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 17 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656597
CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656602
CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656852
CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656857
Dhananjay Kumar Roy .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
O/O Divisional Railway Manager,
Eastern Railway, Asansol Division,
Munshi Bazar, Asansol -713301
2. CPIO,
The FAA,
Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner,
DRM Building, Asansol - 713301. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 08.04.2025
Date of Decision : 16.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together for
disposal through common order as these are based on similar issues raised
by the same applicant.
Page 1 of 22
CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656597
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 03.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 16.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.12.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Matter-Dhananjay kr Roy, I was caught by the police and kept in RPF PS Madhupur on 14/10/2023 please sought information of my following question-
01 On what date, day and time did TTE-Madhupur catch us and hand us over to RPF PS-Madhupur?
02 Can RPF detain a person who was traveling without ticket from the last two Railway station?
03 Due to which mistake Dhananjay Kumar Roy was kept in RPF PS- Madhpur?
04 For how many hours can the RPF PS incharge hold you?
05 For how many hours was kept in RPF PS-Madhupur?
06 When we were detained in Railway Police Station-Madhupur, was it mentioned in any register that Dhananjay Kumar Roy was detained in Railway police Force PS-Madhupur? If the answer is yes, then a self- attested satisfied copy of that register should be given. If the answer is no, then tell whether any diary or register of the arrested person is not mentioned by the police?
07 How long did the RPF PS-Madhupur holds us?
08 Please tell us the date, day, and time when the RPF PS-Madhupur officer caught us?Page 2 of 22
09 Please tell us the date, day and time when the officer of RPF PS- Madhupur released us?
10 RPF PS-Madhupur, Please tell us the name and position of the police officer who made us write an apology letter (Maffinama)?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.11.2023 stating as under:
"In reference to the above cited representation this is to inform that information as sought for does not come under the purview of RTI Act as it is question in nature. Public authority has no obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether. Petitioner can seek information as defined in section 2 (f) either by pin pointing the file, document, paper or record etc or by mentioning type of information as may be available with specific public authority. (CIC's ruling in case file no. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2006 in the matter of Dr.D.V.Rao Vs Yashwant Singh). Public authority within the provision of RTI Act 2005 is not required to interpret information as raised by applicant. Therefore such query at Sl No.1,2,3 is not covered under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.12.2023, held as under:
"Reference above, your RTI representation and your RTI appeal has been perused carefully and reply received from PIO & DCM(I/C)/Eastern Railway/Asansol vide letter under reference (ii) as mentioned above are enclosed herewith for your information.
Your appeal is thus disposed of accordingly."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.12.2023 stating as under:
"In reference to the letter mentioned under reference (i), this is to mention that, one RTI representation was received on 20.10.2023 by this office through RTI portal and on going through the representation it was seen that information sought by the information seeker Shri Dhananjay kumar Roy was regarding Ticket checking staff of Madhupur station.Page 3 of 22
It is to mention here that information as sought for does not come under the purview of RTI Act as it is question in nature. Public authority has no obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether. Petitioner can seek information as defined in section 2 (f) either by pin pointing the file, document, paper or record etc or by mentioning type of information as may be available with specific public authority. (CIC's ruling in case file no. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2006 in the matter of Dr. D. V. Rao Vs Yashwant Singh).
This is for your information please."
CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656602 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 10.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 16.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.12.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Matter-My name is Dhananjay Kumar Roy. I had booked a ticket from Ranchi to Jamtara on 13/10/2023. The ticket price was RS 95, which was of general category. Mv ticket number is 22288184 and IR number is 20AAAGM0289C1ZX issue from atp machine. We started the journey by Maurya Express could not get down from the train at Jamtara railway station due to being sleepy. When i woke up, I came to know that now the train is leaving Vidyasagar railway station and going towards Madhupur railway station. I got off the train at Madhupur at around 12:40 am on date 14/10/2023 TTE-Madhupur caught us by calling us traveling without ticket. After this we were handed over to the RPF PS- Madhupur where we were held for several hours.
This incident happened to me under Madhupur Railway Station, Dist- Deoghar, Jharkhand.
01 What date, day and time did the TTE-Madhupur catuch us?Page 4 of 22
02.TTE-Madhupur caught us from which platform number?
03. Tell us the name of the TTE, who caught us for traveling without a ticket?
04 Please tell us the name of all those TTEs whose duty was given for ticket cheaking on 14/10/2023 (Full day) at Madhupur Railway Station. Also tell us the duty timeing of all those on duty TTES?
05. Does TTEs in Madhupur railway station have to take help of non government person/ private person to catch people traveling without ticket (Answer can be given only in yes or no)?
06 Dhananjay kumar Roy was caught by the the-madhupur railway station. Did Dhananjay kumar Roy misbehave with her in any way (answer should be yes or no)?
07.The TTE-Madhupur Railway station who caught Dhananjay kumar Roy. Did Dhananjay Kumar Roy misbehave with him in any way? If your answer is yes then give us complete information of that misbehavior?
08. The TTE-Madhupur Railway station who caught Dhananjay kumar Roy traveling without a ticket. Was the amount of penalty fee and amount of additional distance penalty fee recovered from Dhananjay Kumar Roy (Answer should be yes or no)?
09.The TTE-Madhupur Railway Station who caught Dhananjay Kumar Roy traveling without a ticket. if penalty amount and additional distance penalty amount was recovered from Dhananjay Kumar Roy then please tell us how much total amount was recovered, on which date it was done, at what time it was done, by which TTE Madhupur (mention his name), how much rupee was recovered as penalty amount and how much rupee was recovered as extra distance penalty amount?
10. Please list all those TTEs who were on duty at Madhupur Railway Station from 12:30 AM to 02:30 AM on 14/10/20237
11. Please list all those TTEs who were on duty at Madhupur Railway Station from 12:30 AM to 02:30 AM on 14/10/2023? in which give the name of that TTEs, father name, present address, permanent address, Page 5 of 22 passport size of all those TTEs along with photo and mobile number (the answer of this question should be in excel format)?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.11.2023 stating as under:
"In reference to the above cited representation this is to inform that information as sought for does not come under the purview of RTI Act as it is question in nature. Public authority has no obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether. Petitioner can seek information as defined in section 2 (f) either by pin pointing the file, document, paper or record etc or by mentioning type of information as may be available with specific public authority. (CIC's ruling in case file no. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2006 in the matter of Dr.D.V.Rao Vs Yashwant Singh). Public authority within the provision of RTI Act 2005 is not required to interpret information as raised by applicant. Therefore such query at Sl No.1,2,3 is not covered under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.12.2023, held as under:
"Reference above, your RTI representation and your RTI appeal has been perused carefully and reply received from PIO & DCM(I/C)/Eastern Railway/Asansol vide letter under reference (ii) as mentioned above are enclosed herewith for your information.
Your appeal is thus disposed of accordingly."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.12.2023 stating as under:
"In reference to the letter mentioned under reference (i), this is to mention that, one RTI representation was received on 20.10.2023 by this office through RTI portal and on going through the representation it was seen that information sought by the information seeker Shri Dhananjay kumar Roy was regarding Ticket checking staff of Madhupur station.
It is to mention here that information as sought for does not come under the purview of RTI Act as it is question in nature. Public authority has no obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether. Petitioner can seek information as defined in section 2 (f) either Page 6 of 22 by pin pointing the file, document, paper or record etc or by mentioning type of information as may be available with specific public authority. (CIC's ruling in case file no. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2006 in the matter of Dr. D.V. Rao Vs Yashwant Singh)."
CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656852 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 30.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 20.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.12.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Matter-Dhananjay kr Roy, I was caught by the police and kept in RPF PS Madhupur on 14/10/2023, please sought information of my following question-
01 On what date, day and time did TTE-Madhupur catch us and hand us over to RPF PS-Madhupur?
02 Can RPF detain a person who was traveling without ticket from the last two Railway station?
03 Due to which mistake Dhananjay Kumar Roy was kept in RPF PS- Madhpur?
04 For how many hours can the RPF PS incharge hold you?
05 For how many hours was kept in RPF PS-Madhupur?
06 When we were detained in Railway Police Station-Madhupur, was it mentioned in any register that Dhananjay Kumar Roy was detained in Railway police Force PS-Madhupur? If the answer is yes, then a self- attested satisfied copy of that register should be given. If the answer is no, then tell whether any diary or register of the arrested person is not mentioned by the police?Page 7 of 22
07 How long did the RPF PS-Madhupur holds us?
08 Please tell us the date, day, and time when the RPF PS-Madhupur officer caught us?
09 Please tell us the date, day and time when the officer of RPF PS- Madhupur released us?
10 RPF PS-Madhupur, Please tell us the name and position of the police officer who made us write an apology letter (Maffinama)?"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 30.10.2023 stating as under:
"1.On 14.10.2023 Sri Dhananjay Kumar Roy was caught by on duty TTE/MDP as without ticket at Madhupur railway station. The said person was brought to RPF Post Madhupur in the early morning by on duty TTE/Madhupur.
2. The person was travelling without any authority and he was caught by TTE Madhupur. He was brought to RPF Post Madhupur on station premises.
3. The person was caught by on duty TTE/Madhupur without ticket during checking. As per requisition of ITE/Madhupur the said person was brought at RPF Post Madhupur on station premises as no space was available with TTE/Madhupur to keep the person. This has also been mentioned in the application of TTE/Madhupur to Inspector In- Charge/RPF Madhupur.
4. In this case the person was not arrested and no case has been registered against him. In the event of arrest of any offenders by RPF Post, he is forwarded to the Ld. Court, as per provision mentioned in Section 57 of Cr. PC, within 24 hours from the time of his arrest.
5. The said person was caught by TTE/Madhupur and was released after paying amount of fine for without ticket by TTE/Madhupur vide EFT No. F-941914.
6. As the person was not arrested, no case was registered at RPF Post Madhupur against him. So question of maintaining record does not arise.Page 8 of 22
7. The person remained at RPF post Madhupur till such time he paid the amount of fine on the same day.
8. No any officer/staff of RPF Madhupur caught him. On duty TTE/Madhupur caught as without ticket and brought him to RPF Post Madhupur in the early morning for keeping him at RPF Post Madhupur on station premises till payment of amount of fine to TTE as no space was available with TTE/Madhupur to keep the person, as he mentioned in his requisition.
9. The person was released by on duty TTE/Madhupur after payment of amount of fine through EFT no. F-941914.
10. The information cannot be disclosed as per provision mentioned in Section 8 (g) of the Act.
Hence, the referred application is hereby disposed off."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.12.2023, held as under:
"Reference above, your RTI representation and your RTI appeal has been perused carefully and reply received from PIO & Sr. DSC/Eastern Railway/Asansol vide letter under reference (ii) as mentioned above are enclosed herewith for your information.
Your appeal is thus disposed of accordingly."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 23.11.2023 stating as under:
"Reference above, it is to intimate that prior to receipt of this instant Appeal, the RTI application vide registration no. under reference (i) was received by this office through online which has been disposed off by this office by supplying information directly to the applicant Sri Dhanjay Kumar Roy of *********, Dist-Giridih, Jharkhand, Pin: 815318, Jharkhand Mob: +91-******9256, through his given E-Mail address (Email: [email protected]) (Copy Enclosed) Now the appellant has put the following questions and sought information, which are replied as under.Page 9 of 22
01. On 14.10.2023, the appellant was caught by TTE-Madhupur as without ticket at Madhupur Railway Station. Thereafter on 14.10.2023, Saturday in the early morning he was brought to RPF Post Madhupur by TTE-Madhupur.
02. No. But the appellant was caught by TTE-Madhupur and due to want of space to keep the appellant at his office; he had requested RPF Madhupur to keep the appellant till he arranges the fine for payment.
05. The appellant was caught by TTE-Madhupur on 14.10.2023, Saturday and was brought to RPF Post Madhupur in the early morning. He was released by TTE-Madhupur after paying amount of fine for without ticket. Since the appellant was not arrested and no case was registered against him by RPF Madhupur, hence no record was necessitated to keep in this regard by RPF Madhupur.
06. The reply in respect to the question under Sl. No. 06 of the application holds good.
08. The clarification has been mentioned in question no. 01 of the Appeal which may kindly be perused.
09. The reply in respect to the question under Sl. No. 06 of the application holds good.
10. The reply in respect to the question under Sl. No. 10 of the application holds good.
It is also to submit that the applicant in regard to the questioned incident, had also preferred another application vide registration no. ERASD/R/E/23/00361 dtd. 17.10.2023, which has also been disposed off by this office by supplying information directly to the applicant Sri Dhanjay Kumar Roy of Gram- *********, Dist-Giridih, Jharkhand, Pin:
815318, Jharkhand Mob: +91-*****39256, through his given E-Mail address (Email: [email protected]) (Copy Enclosed)."
CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656857 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.10.2023
Page 10 of 22
CPIO replied on : 30.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.12.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Matter-Dhananjay kr Roy, I was caught by the police and kept in RPF PS Madhupur, dist deoghar, jharkhnad on 14/10/2023 please sought information of my following question-
1. When you detained Dhananjay Kumar Roy did you inform any of his family members or anyone close to him? If your answer is yes then through which medium were you informed. Give its complete details?
2. When you detained Dhananjay Kumar Roy, did you inform any of his family members or anyone close to him? If your answer is yes then tell the name of that person?
3.An application was filled by TTE-Madhupur against me in RPF PS- Madhupur, which was written in front of me, please give us a satisfied copy of that application?
4. Please give us the list with name, father name, present address, Permanent Address, designation and passport size photograph of all those policemen who were present and on duty at RPF PS-Madhupur on 14/10/2023 (List must be in the excel format)?
5.ASI Savkat kamal and Man Mohan Kumar have been given the authority by which department to misbehave, beating and abuse any person?
6.ASI Savkat Kamal made a video clip of one through his mobile. Please give us a copy of that video clip ?
7. Can you give us a certified copy of the apology letter written by me?"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 30.10.2023 stating as under:
Page 11 of 22"1. On duty TTE/Madhupur detained the person as without ticket at Madhupur Railway Station and brought him to RPF Post Madhupur in the early morning. As the detained person was ready to pay fine as such he was not arrested or no case was registered at RPF Post Madhupur against Dhanjay Kumar Roy. As per law, information is given to family member/relatives/close person in the event of making arrest. In such case as the person was not arrested, hence question of giving information to his family members does not arise. In such incident, scope/time was given to the person to arrange to pay amount of fine from his relatives/family members for payment to TTE.
2. Proper opportunity was given to the detained person by TTE and assisted by RPF to collect the amount of fine. As such, the detained person made several phone calls to his relatives/family members to collect the amount of fine.
3. The information cannot be disclosed as per provision mentioned in Section 8 (g) & (j) of the Act.
4. The information cannot be disclosed as per provision mentioned in Section 8 (g) & (j) of the Act.
5. No misbehaviour/beating/abuse happened with the detained person by any officer/staff of RPF Post Madhupur. The same has categorically been mentioned by the detained person in his letter written under his own hand.
6. No video clip was taken by any of the officers and staff of RPF Madhupur.
7. The information cannot be disclosed as per provision mentioned in Section 8 (g) of the Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.12.2023, held as under:
"Reference above, your RTI representation and your RTI appeal has been perused carefully and reply received from PIO & Sr. DSC/Eastern Railway/Asansol vide letter under reference (ii) as mentioned above are enclosed herewith for your information.
Your appeal is thus disposed of accordingly."Page 12 of 22
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 30.10.2023 stating as under:
"Reference above, it is to intimate that prior to receipt of this instant Appeal, the RTI application vide registration no. under reference (i) was received by this office through online which has been disposed off by this office by supplying information directly to the applicant Sri Dhanjay Kumar Roy of Gram- *********, Dist-Giridih, Jharkhand, Pin: 815318, Jharkhand Mob: +91- *********, through his given E-Mail address (Email: [email protected]) (Copy Enclosed) Now the appellant has put the following questions and sought information, which are replied as under.
01. On 14.10.2023, duty TTE/Madhupur being detected as without ticket detained the person at Madhupur Railway Station and was brought to RPF Post Madhupur in the early morning. No case was registered at RPF Post Madhupur against Dhanjay Kumar Roy since he was ready to pay fine. Hence, the person was not arrested. As per law, on the event of arrest of any Individual, information is given to family member/relatives/close person. In the instant case since the person was not arrested, hence question of giving information to his family members does not arise. However, scope/time was offered to the person to arrange amount of fine from his relatives/family members for payment to TTE.
02. The reply in respect to the question under Sl. No. 02 of the application holds good.
03 & 04. The replies in respect to the questions under Sl. No. 03 & 04 of the application hold good.
05. The reply in respect to the question under Sl. No. 05 of the application holds good.
06. The reply in respect to the question under Sl. No. 06 of the application holds good.
07. The reply in respect to the question under Sl. No. 07 of the application holds good.Page 13 of 22
It is also to submit that the applicant in regard to the questioned incident, had also preferred another application vide registration no. ERASD/R/E/23/00360/1 dtd. 17.10.2023, which has also been disposed off by this office by supplying information directly to the applicant Sri Dhanjay Kumar Roy of Gram- *********, Dist-Giridih, Jharkhand, Pin:
815318, Jharkhand Mob: +91- *********, through his given E-Mail address (Email: [email protected]) (Copy Enclosed). Against this application the applicant has also preferred an Appeal vide registration no. ERASD/A/E/22/00059 dated: 20.11.2023 and the details of which has been submitted through this office letter of even no. dated: 23.11.2023 (Copy enclosed). The declaration as written by Sri Dhananjay Roy is also enclosed for kind perusal."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
A written submission dated 04.04.2025 filed by Respondent No. 2 in case File No. CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656852 and CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656857 are taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
File No. CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656852.
"Brief of the incident resulted in preferring RTI application: On 14.10.2023 Sri Dhananjay Kumar Roy, the Appellant, was detected by on duty TTE/MDP as without ticket from Platform No. 02 of Madhupur Railway Station and engaged in hot altercation with on duty TTE/Madhupur namely Kripa Shankar Gupta on the point of refusal to pay fine, since the appellant had no money to pay fine as he introduced himself as a student and preparing for getting job. The appellant was behaving inappropriately with the TTE and informed that about 10:30 hrs. he will arrange the requisite fine and till then he wanted to wait. As such, on duty TTE/Madhupur, brought the appellant to RPF Post Madhupur in the early morning with a written memo (Copy Attached for kind perusal) duly briefing the fact. TTE/Madhupur also requested to detain the person at RPF Post Madhupur till recovery of fine amount duly mentioning that no space was available with TTE/Madhupur to detain the appellant. At RPF Post Madhupur, he persuaded to give fine (after arrangement) and apologized in writing (Copy Attached for kind perusal) for hot-talk. Later, he made several phone calls to his relatives/ friends to collect fine amount. After arrangement of fine-amount, he paid fine before TTE/Madhupur vide EFT No. F-941914 (Copy Attached for kind perusal) and was released on 14.10.2023.Page 14 of 22
Sir, the appellant preferred the RTI application under reference (i) which has been examined at this office and the same has been disposed of through this office letter of even no. (5693) dated: 30.10.2023 and the copy of which is enclosed for kind perusal.
Sir, the appellant preferred an Appeal under reference (ii) before Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway Asansol being FAA being dissatisfied with the information against his application dated: 17.10.2023. Accordingly, the information as sought has also been provided to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway Asansol, FAA vide this office letter of even no. (6145) dated: 23.11.2023 and the copy of which is enclosed for kind perusal.
Now in the instant appeal, under reference (iii) preferred before Hon'ble Central Information Commission by Appellant, has sought the sets of questions, information of which were sought through his appeal before FAA i.e. question no. 01, 02, 05, 06, 08, 09, & 10 which was sought through appeal vide under reference (ii) and the same is furnished as under.
01. Day and time were not mentioned in question number 01. The day and time when we were caught by TTE-Madhupur was not mention. After we were caught by TTF-Madhupur we were handed over to the RPF PS Madhupur. Its date and time were not mentioned.
On 14.10.2023, the appellant was detected by TTE-Madhupur as without ticket at PF no. 02 of Madhupur Railway Station. Thereafter on 14.10.2023, Saturday in the early morning he was brought to RPF Post Madhupur by TTE- Madhupur.
02. I am not asking for clarification from RPF PS Madhupur, just answer yes and no Question no. 02.
No. But the appellant was detected by TTE-Madhupur as without ticket and due to want of space to keep the appellant at his office; he had requested RPF Madhupur to keep the appellant till he arranges the fine for payment.
05. No mention of the hours in reply by RPF PS-Madhupur. The appellant was caught by TTE-Madhupur on 14.10.2023, Saturday and was brought to RPF Post Madhupur in the early morning. He was released by TTE-Madhupur after paying amount of fine for without ticket to commercial department at 11:54 hrs. Since the appellant was not arrested and no case was registered against him by RPF Madhupur, hence no record has been kept in this regard by RPF Madhupur.
06. You have said in your reply that the reason for keeping this person was given application by TTE Madhupur. Is the matter against which the application is made not mentioned in any diary/register?Page 15 of 22
Since the appellant was not arrested and no case was registered at RPF Post Madhupur against him. Thus, no record was maintained at RPF Post Madhupur. But the requisition of TTE/Madhupur corroborates that the appellant was brought to RPF Post Madhupur for keeping him there as no space was available with the TTE/Madhupur to keep the detainee.
08. Please tell us the date, day and time when I was taken to RPF PS Madhupur after being caught by TTE-Madhupur?
On 14.10.2023, the appellant was detected by TTE-Madhupur as without ticket at PF no. 02 of On 14.10.2023, the appellant was detected by TTE- Madhupur as without ticket at PF no. 02 of Madhupur Railway Station. Thereafter on 14.10.2023, Saturday in the early morning he was brought to RPF Post Madhupur by TTE-Madhupur. But the on duty TTE Madhupur did not mention the time in his requisition. However, during enquiry it was observed that during the duty of ASI Sawat Kamal who was deployed from 00:00 hrs. of 13.10.2023 to 08:00 hrs. of 14.10.2023 the appellant was brought by the TTE/Madhupur being detected as without ticket.
09. Mention the date, day and time of released us by RPF PS Madhupur, because this was placed on your RPF PS-Madhupur. The person was released by on duty TTE Madhupur after payment of amount of fine through EFT no. F-941914 on 14.10.2023 at 1l:54 hrs., Saturday since at the time of detection by TTE/MDP, the appellant was not available with the fine amount which was later collected by him from his relatives which took time to deposit and subsequent his release.
10. By answering question number 10 will not violate section 8(G) of the Right to Information Act-200S.
The information was not disclosed as per provision mentioned in Section 8 (g) of the Act. I therefore pray before your kind self that this office has provided information to the appellant from time to time as per guidelines/provisions mentioned in the Right to Information Act 2005 and the same shall be maintained in letter and sprit in future days also.
File No. CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656857 "....the appellant preferred an Appeal under reference (ii) before Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway Asansol being FAA being dissatisfied with the information against his application dated: 17.10.2023.Page 16 of 22
Accordingly. the information as sought has also been provided to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager. Eastern Railway Asansol, FAA vide this office letter of even no. (6206) dated: 29.11.2023 and the copy of which is enclosed for kind perusal.
Now in the instant appeal, under reference (ii) preferred before Hon'ble Central Information Commission by Appellant. has sought information against the set of questions, information of which were sought through his RTI application dated: I7.10.2023 and the same is furnished as under.
1. When you detained Dhananjay Kumar Roy did you inform any of his family members or anyone close to him? If your answer is yes then through which medium were you informed. Give its complete details? On duty TTE Madhupur detained the person as without ticket at Madhupur Railway Station and brought him to RPF Post Madhupur in the early morning. As the detained person was ready to pay fine as such he was not arrested or no case was registered at RPF Post Madhupur against Dhanjay Kumar Roy. As per law in force, information is given to family member/relatives/close person within 24 hours in the event of making arrest. In such case as the person was not arrested, hence no information to his family members was necessitated. Although the as per requisition of TTE Madhupur the appellant was ready to pay fine by the fine amount was not available with him till that time. Thus, in such incident, scope/time was given to the person to arrange to pay amount of fine from his relatives/family members for payment to TTE.
2. When you detained Dhananjay Kumar Roy, did you inform any of his family members or anyone close to him? If your answer is yes then tell the name of that person?
As per law in force, information is given to family member/relatives/close person within 24 hours in the event of making arrest. In such case as the person was not arrested, hence no information to his family members was necessitated.
3. An application was filled by TTE-Madhupur against me in RPF PS- Madhupur, which was written in front of me, please give us a satisfied copy of that application?Page 17 of 22
The information was not disclosed as per provision mentioned in Section 8 (g) & (i) of the Act.
4. Please give us the list with name, father name, present address, Permanent Address, designation and passport size photograph of all those policemen who were present and on duty at RPF PS-Madhupur on 14/10/2023 (List must be in the excel format)?
5. The information was not disclosed as per provision mentioned in Section 8 (g) & (i) of the Act.
6. ASI Savkat Kamal and Man Mohan Kumar have been given the authority by which department to misbehave, beating and abuse any person?
During enquiry it was observed that no misbehavior/beating/abuse happened with the detained person by any officer/staff of RPF Post Madhupur. The same has categorically been mentioned by the appellant in his letter written under his own hand.
7. ASI Savkat Kamal made a video clip of one through his mobile. Please give us a copy of that video clip?
During enquiry it was noticed that no video clip was taken by any of the officers and staff of RPF Madhupur.
8. Can you give us a certified copy of the apology letter written by me? The information was not disclosed as per provision mentioned in Section 8 (g) of the Act.
I therefore pray before your kind self that this office has provided information to the appellant from time to time as per guidelines/provisions mentioned in the Right to Information Act 2005 and the same shall be maintained in letter and spirit in future days also. Submitted please.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through videoconference.
Respondent No. 1: Not present.
Respondent No. 2: Sri Rahul Raj, IRPFS, Sr. Divisional Protection Officer, RPF, Eastern Railway, Asansol Division present through videoconference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that hearing notice served to the Respondent No. 1 received back undelivered with the postal remarks "Refused, RTS."Page 18 of 22
The appellant while reiterating the contents of his Second Appeals and RTI applications expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that complete explanation with reason for his detention for 12 hours by the RPF police station has not been given by the respondents. In case File No. CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/656852, the appellant his restricted his arguments to point No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of RTI application by stating that satisfactory reply on these points was not furnished to him till date. He prayed the Commission to intervene in the matters.
The respondent No. 2 by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission apprised the bench that on 14.10.2023 the Appellant was detected by the on duty TTE/MDP as the passenger travelling without ticket from Platform No. 02 of Madhupur Railway Station and engaged in hot altercation with the on duty TTE/Madhupur namely Shri Kripa Shankar Gupta on the point of refusal to pay fine for want of money as he claimed himself to be a student and preparing for exams to get job. The appellant was behaving inappropriately with the TTE and informed that about 10:30 hours he undertook to arrange the requisite fine and till then he wanted to wait. As such, the on duty TTE/Madhupur, brought the appellant to RPF Post Madhupur in the early morning with a written memo (Copy Attached in the file) and brief of the facts. The TTE/Madhupur also requested to detain a person at RPF Post Madhupur till recovery of fine amount duly mentioning that no space was available with TTE/Madhupur to detain the appellant. At RPF Post Madhupur, he was persuaded to pay the fine (after arrangement) and he apologized in writing for altercation. Later, he made several phone calls to his relatives/ friends to arrange the fine amount. After arrangement of fine-amount, he paid the fine before TTE/Madhupur vide EFT No. F-941914 and was released on the same day i.e. 14.10.2023. There was no detention order issued against the appellant. As far as RTI applications are concerned, point-wise reply along with relevant information based on the available records has been provided to the appellant in the first instance and upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, a revised updated reply in the form of written submissions were supplied to the appellant.
Decision:
Page 19 of 22The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records observes that the main premise of instant Appeals were unsatisfactory replies from the respondents. In response to which, the respondent No. 2 claimed that reply as per RTI Act has already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 30.10.2023 and upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission a revised updated reply in the form of written submission dated 04.04.2025 was supplied to the appellant as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
The Commission notes that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the replies provided by the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are bereft of merit as queries raised by the appellant in these RTI Applications majorly do not conform to the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act. It appears that the Appellant is seeking explanation/clarifications to be drawn by the CPIO. The Commission also notes that at the relevant time the appellant was a student who was looking for a job, and any formal arrest/detention order would have diminished his employment potential besides adversely affecting his character antecedent/police verification.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subjected to penal provisions under the RTI Act. Despite this, the reply provided by Respondent No. 1 earlier and by Respondent No. 2 now vide written submission dated 04.04.2025 which is treated as revised and updated reply against respective RTI applications are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information Page 20 of 22 which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) It also appears during hearing that the Appellant is embracing his grievance regarding his alleged detention for 12 hours in the RPF Police Station on the date of incident and no specific information has been sought by him as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6...proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
Page 21 of 22"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the intervention of the Commission is not warranted in these matters.
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the Respondent No. 1, the CPIO, O/O DRM, Eastern Railway, Asansol Division, Asansol for refusing to accept the hearing notice issued by a Government Establishment created under the statutory Act and cautions him/her to be careful in future, failing which action may be initiated against him/her as per the law. A copy of this order be placed by the FAA, O/O. DRM, Eastern Railway, Asansol Division, Asansol before the controlling officer of the present CPIO (Respondent No. 1 herein) to take note of the observations.
Role of Respondent No. 2 is hereby dispensed with.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
THE FAA, ADRM, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Eastern Railway Asansol Division, Munshi Bazar, Asansol - 713301 Page 22 of 22 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)