Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Northern Railway on 15 January, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NRAIL/A/2022/135234
Rajesh Kumar Gupta .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
1. O/o THE CPIO & SENIOR
COMML.MANAGER NORTHERN
RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS OFFICE,
CLAIMS BRANCH, NDCR BUILDING,
S E ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110001.
CPIO
2. Divisional Commercial Manager
(PM) Mumbai Division, Western
Railway. Mumbai Central,
Mumbai - 400008. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 04-01-2024
Date of Decision : 11-01-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13-04-2022
CPIO replied on : 04-05-2022
First appeal filed on : 23-05-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : NIL
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17-07-2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 13.04.2022 with Respondent No. 1 seeking the following information:
"1. status journey undertaken on PNR No. 241-2917329
2. Status of cancellation of PNR No. 241-2917329
3. Status of blocking of PNR No. 241-2917329 on the request of passenger and date of blocking
4. Status of refund taken on the PNR No. 241-2917329 against cancellation.
5. Procedure to get refund on lost ticket booked on Railway booking counter and process of getting refund on lost ticket prior to 03/05/2005."
On 04.05.2022, Respondent no 2 furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.05.2022 stating as under -
"...As per the information received from concerned record keeping officer Assistant Commercial Manager (R) information against point number 1 to 4 pertaining to Data Base/CSTI,4 Central railway.
information against point number 5 enclosed herewith..."
Respondent No. 2 furnished another reply to the Appellant on 10.06.2022 stating as under:
"In reference to your RTI Application quoted above, regarding item/para No. 1 to 4, it is apprised that you have not given any clue as to under what authority information is being sought in respect of passenger booked under the ticket in question. Hon'ble CIC in Appeal No. 12/IC(A)2006, dated 14/03/2006 (A.P Singh V/s Punjab National Bank) upheld the decision of Public Authority whereby information sought by the appellant/applicant was declined being third party information in terms of law provided under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, in view of above provisions requisite information cannot be provided to you.
So far as item/para No. 5 is concerned, you can view Refund Rules on https://www.indianrail.gov.in/enquiry/StaticPages/StaticEnquiry.jsp?Sta ticPage=refundRules.html&locale=en&https://refunds.indianrail.gov.in/r ef_rules/REFUND_RULES_CIRCULARS/GSR_410E_24- july-1998.pdf."2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.05.2022. The FAA vide its order dated NIL, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent No. 1: Shri Sajal Kumar Sinha, Dy. CCM/ System cum Deemed CPIO, IRCA along with Ms. Sumegha Sharma, C.S./ RTI- IRCA and Sh. Mahesh Kumar, COS/RTI/NDBH present through video-conference.
Respondent No. 2: Shri Saurabh Kumar, DCM (Passenger Marketing) present through video-conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI Application expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the information sought has been wrongly denied by the CPIO at points No. 1-4 ignoring the fact that it pertains to the Appellant himself as the averred PNR relates to his own journey of 2005.
Written submission(s) filed by the Respondents are taken on record. Respondent No. 2 submitted that reply against point No. 5 of RTI Application has already been provided to the Appellant while the queries raised by the Appellant at point No. 1 to 4 of RTI Application pertains to Respondent No. 1; therefore, the RTI Application has been transferred to them under Section 6(3) of RTI Act.
Respondent No. 1 submitted that the information sought by the Appellant at points No. 1 to 4 of RTI Application pertains to third party which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI. He further submitted that the preservation period of PNR related records is three and a half years, thereafter, these records are automatically deleted and such unique PNR numbers are recycled for new bookings. Upon tracing of records, it also came to the notice that said PNR number in recent time was allotted to someone else and not to the Appellant, hence, third party information.3
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of all the parties observes that the response provided by the Respondent are in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
However, considering the hearing proceedings, the Respondent No. 1 is directed to provide a revised updated reply against point nos. 1 to 4 of RTI Application by stating the facts as mentioned during hearing. This direction should be complied by the Respondent No. 1 within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
Role of Respondent No. 2 is hereby dispensed with.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011-26181927 Date 11-01-2024 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta H.No. 604, Sector 2, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Haryana - 136118.4