Central Information Commission
Sumit Mitra vs Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 27 October, 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/2024/654651
Sumit Mitra .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Divisional
Railway Manger Eastern
Railway, Asansol Division,
Munshi Bazar, Asansol - 713301 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.10.2025
Date of Decision : 24.10.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.09.2024
CPIO replied on : 30.10.2024
First appeal filed on : 01.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 28.11.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.12.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.09.2024 (online) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"I want the following information or data or question or status or copy from the Office of the DRM, ASANSOL DIVISION, Eastern Railway, West Bengal under RTI Act 2005.
(1) How many Goods Guard Joined as fresh recruit (New recruitment) in this division during the period 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2015.
(2) How many Goods Guard entry pay was fixed as Rs.12340/- as per RBE 109 2008.
(3) How many Goods Guard entry pay was REFIXED as Rs.11360/- as per RBE 108 2008 (4) On Refixation matter, how many recoveries are made till date.
(5) Any Case filed on this ground in CAT, case number and detail status of that case may be furnished.
(6) Any Case filed on this ground in HC, case number and detail status of that case may be furnished."
2. The CPIO & Sr. DPO, Eastern Railway, Asansol furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.10.2024 stating as under:
"Reference above,. remarks in this respect has been received from concerned officers of the matter i.e. Asstt. Personnel officer (III) / ER/ ASN vide letter no. E (T-I)/ RTI/SM/ 2024 dt. 29.10. 24. Same is enclosed herewith for your information please.
Addl. Divl. Railway Manager is the Appellate Authority of this Division."
3. The CPIO, Asstt. Personnel Officer (III) Eastern Railway, Asansol furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.10.2024 stating as under:
"Reference above, information as sought by the information seeker vide item nos. 1, 2 & 3 has been examined and following is furnished:
Information is not maintained at a place. For compiling the required information as sought by the information seeker, Service Record of each employee of about 937 numbers has to be consulted, which will certainly divert the sources of the public authority. So, information seeker may visit this office with prior intimation to this office and get his queries answered as per Section 7 (9) of RTI Act. Information will be provided which are disclosable as per the provision of RTI Act."Page 2 of 6
4. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 28.11.2024, held as under:
"Reference above, your RTI representation and your RTI appeal has been perused carefully and reply received from PIO & Sr. DPO/ER/Asansol vide letter under reference (ii) as mentioned above are enclosed herewith for your information.
Your appeal is thus disposed of accordingly."
5. The CPIO & Sr. DPO, Eastern Railway, Asansol furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.11.2024 stating as under:
"Reference above, remarks under item nos. 1 to 3 in respect of appellant's RTI representation as had been received vide letter as in reference (iii) above was sent to the appellant. In view of appellant's RTI appeal it is stated that information as sought for has not been denied. Rather, he was requested to visit this office and get his queries answered, otherwise it would certainly divert the resources of the public authority. As per section 7(9) of RTI Act "Information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question".
Same has been followed in this regard.
Appellant may visit this office in any working day/days with prior intimation and get his all queries answered /receive all documents in regard to his RTI representation as per the provision of RTI Act."
6. 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: Ms. Bubble Yadav, Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer- participated in the hearing.Page 3 of 6
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 09.12.2024 is not available on record.
8. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO till date.
9. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought is not available in compiled form/desired format in their official records. A written submission dated 10.10.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..In view of appellant's appeal to Appellate Authority & ADRM/ASN, following submission was made by PIO & Sr. DPO to the Appellate Authority (A-5):
In view of appellant's RTI appeal it is stated that information as sought for has not been denied. Rather, he was requested to visit this office and get his queries answered, otherwise it would certainly divert the resources of the public authority. As per Section 7(9) of RTI Act Information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question'. Same has been followed in this regard". Appeal was disposed of accordingly by the Appellate Authority.
Following submission is also made in this respect:
Sought for information is not maintained. In the seniority list of Goods Guard, date of appointment is mentioned, but the applicant had sought mode of recruitment (fresh recruit) and refixation of pay of the employees, which is only available in the SR of the staff concerned. So, to provide the information, SR of each and every employee in Goods Guard category has to be consulted to collate the information. This will require a lot of time and will also involve manpower diverting the resources of Page 4 of 6 this public authority. Therefore, Section 7(9) of the RTI Act was invoked. Information was denied. Lnot On receipt of the Hon'ble Commission's Notice for Hearing, a fresh reply to the complainant has been sent mentioning the position of this office. (copy enclosed as A-6)..."
Decision:
10.The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has provided an appropriate reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act to the Appellant and under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and in the form held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to create or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.
11.Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that the Appellant has been filing RTI Applications since 2013 and so far, 54 cases of the same Appellant against same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission and 15 are listed for hearing today. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the appellant has indulged in forum shopping and 18 cases of the Appellant involving similar subject matter has already disposed of by this Bench of the Commission. The Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.
12.A copy of this order is marked to Director General of Geographical Survey of India to consider taking action against the Appellant for abuse Page 5 of 6 of the RTI system and choking it so as to make it unavailable to other Applicants. The orders of this Commission can be accessed online at https://cic.gov.in/decision.
The appeal is disposed off 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 Manger Eastern Railway, Asansol Division, Munshi Bazar, Asansol - 713301 Director General Geological Survey of India, 27 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata 700016 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)