Central Information Commission
Murugan M vs Southern Railway on 2 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386
M. Murugan ....िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
C.P.I.O,
Southern Railway
O/o the Divisional Personnel Officer,
Madurai Division,
Madurai (T.N.) - 625 016 .... ितवादी/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02-03-2026
Date of Decision : 02-03-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06-06-2024
CPIO replied on : 08-07-2024
First appeal filed on : 09-07-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Nil
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03-08-2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-06-2024 seeking the following information:
"Mdu div primary maintanance trains more. ac coaches additional attached in all trains more special trains runded in mdu div and new trains inaugurated in mdu div and other depot primary trains extended in mdu div primary maintenance additional post not created sanction post Nill which reason sir"CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 08-07-2024 stating as under:
"Query No.1: Details sought by you is not specific to provide information."
3. The Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09-07-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of CPIO vide order dated Nil.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri V Swaminathan, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer & PIO present through Video-Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 03.08.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letter dated 08.07.2024, they have categorically informed the Complainant that "Details sought by you is not specific to provide information."
Decision:
8. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-receipt of information from the Respondent. In this regard, it was noteworthy that an appropriate reply by the Respondent has been provided vide letter dated 08.07.2024 as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
9. The Commission further finds that the dissatisfaction of the Complainant is bereft of merit as the RTI Application merely seeks clarifications and CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 2 of 4 answers to interrogative queries to which the Respondent has suitably replied.
10. The Commission upon a perusal of records and perusal of nature of the information sought by the Complainant in his RTI application, he appears to have misinterpreted the scope and ambit of the RTI Act or appears largely not well acquainted with the technicalities of the Act in terms of what to ask, how to ask and most importantly, what to expect from the PIO(s) & FAA in exercise of his Right To Information. In other words, the information sought in the RTI application do not strictly even conform to the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Complainant has raised queries or statements that are in the form of conjecture, seeking answers to "whether" questions or requires the PIO to form an opinion based on records or interpret the records.
11. In this regard, the DOPT has issued several Office Memoranda (OMs) wherein it has been categorically noted that RTI Act does not include answers to the questions like 'why' or 'whether'. The PIO cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification.
12. It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to create information as per the desire of the Complainant. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advises/rules can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the Public Authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the Complainant.
13. The Commission observes that the Respondent has provided factual position to the Complainant on his RTI application as per the documents available on record.
14. Now, being Complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v.
CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 3 of 4Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of mala fides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
15. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no mala fide intention of obstructing the information to the Complainant, hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 Date Copy To:
M. Murugan CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 4 of 4 के ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067 File No: CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 M. Murugan ....िशकायतकता/Complainant VERSUS बनाम C.P.I.O, Southern Railway O/o the Divisional Personnel Officer, Madurai Division, Madurai (T.N.) - 625 016 .... ितवादी/Respondent Date of Hearing : 02-03-2026 Date of Decision : 02-03-2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06-06-2024 CPIO replied on : 08-07-2024 First appeal filed on : 09-07-2024 First Appellate Authority's order : Nil 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03-08-2024 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-06-2024 seeking the following information:
"Mdu div primary maintanance trains more. ac coaches additional attached in all trains more special trains runded in mdu div and new trains inaugurated in mdu div and other depot primary trains extended in mdu div primary maintenance additional post not created sanction post Nill which reason sir"CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 08-07-2024 stating as under:
"Query No.1: Details sought by you is not specific to provide information."
3. The Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09-07-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of CPIO vide order dated Nil.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri V Swaminathan, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer & PIO present through Video-Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 03.08.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letter dated 08.07.2024, they have categorically informed the Complainant that "Details sought by you is not specific to provide information."
Decision:
8. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-receipt of information from the Respondent. In this regard, it was noteworthy that an appropriate reply by the Respondent has been provided vide letter dated 08.07.2024 as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
9. The Commission further finds that the dissatisfaction of the Complainant is bereft of merit as the RTI Application merely seeks clarifications and CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 2 of 4 answers to interrogative queries to which the Respondent has suitably replied.
10. The Commission upon a perusal of records and perusal of nature of the information sought by the Complainant in his RTI application, he appears to have misinterpreted the scope and ambit of the RTI Act or appears largely not well acquainted with the technicalities of the Act in terms of what to ask, how to ask and most importantly, what to expect from the PIO(s) & FAA in exercise of his Right To Information. In other words, the information sought in the RTI application do not strictly even conform to the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Complainant has raised queries or statements that are in the form of conjecture, seeking answers to "whether" questions or requires the PIO to form an opinion based on records or interpret the records.
11. In this regard, the DOPT has issued several Office Memoranda (OMs) wherein it has been categorically noted that RTI Act does not include answers to the questions like 'why' or 'whether'. The PIO cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification.
12. It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to create information as per the desire of the Complainant. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advises/rules can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the Public Authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the Complainant.
13. The Commission observes that the Respondent has provided factual position to the Complainant on his RTI application as per the documents available on record.
14. Now, being Complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v.
CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 3 of 4Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of mala fides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
15. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no mala fide intention of obstructing the information to the Complainant, hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 Date Copy To:
M. Murugan CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 4 of 4 के ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067 File No: CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 M. Murugan ....िशकायतकता/Complainant VERSUS बनाम C.P.I.O, Southern Railway O/o the Divisional Personnel Officer, Madurai Division, Madurai (T.N.) - 625 016 .... ितवादी/Respondent Date of Hearing : 02-03-2026 Date of Decision : 02-03-2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06-06-2024 CPIO replied on : 08-07-2024 First appeal filed on : 09-07-2024 First Appellate Authority's order : Nil 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03-08-2024 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-06-2024 seeking the following information:
"Mdu div primary maintanance trains more. ac coaches additional attached in all trains more special trains runded in mdu div and new trains inaugurated in mdu div and other depot primary trains extended in mdu div primary maintenance additional post not created sanction post Nill which reason sir"CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 08-07-2024 stating as under:
"Query No.1: Details sought by you is not specific to provide information."
3. The Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09-07-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of CPIO vide order dated Nil.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri V Swaminathan, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer & PIO present through Video-Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 03.08.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letter dated 08.07.2024, they have categorically informed the Complainant that "Details sought by you is not specific to provide information."
Decision:
8. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-receipt of information from the Respondent. In this regard, it was noteworthy that an appropriate reply by the Respondent has been provided vide letter dated 08.07.2024 as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
9. The Commission further finds that the dissatisfaction of the Complainant is bereft of merit as the RTI Application merely seeks clarifications and CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 2 of 4 answers to interrogative queries to which the Respondent has suitably replied.
10. The Commission upon a perusal of records and perusal of nature of the information sought by the Complainant in his RTI application, he appears to have misinterpreted the scope and ambit of the RTI Act or appears largely not well acquainted with the technicalities of the Act in terms of what to ask, how to ask and most importantly, what to expect from the PIO(s) & FAA in exercise of his Right To Information. In other words, the information sought in the RTI application do not strictly even conform to the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Complainant has raised queries or statements that are in the form of conjecture, seeking answers to "whether" questions or requires the PIO to form an opinion based on records or interpret the records.
11. In this regard, the DOPT has issued several Office Memoranda (OMs) wherein it has been categorically noted that RTI Act does not include answers to the questions like 'why' or 'whether'. The PIO cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification.
12. It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to create information as per the desire of the Complainant. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advises/rules can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the Public Authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the Complainant.
13. The Commission observes that the Respondent has provided factual position to the Complainant on his RTI application as per the documents available on record.
14. Now, being Complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v.
CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 3 of 4Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of mala fides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
15. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no mala fide intention of obstructing the information to the Complainant, hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 Date Copy To:
M. Murugan CIC/SORLY/C/2024/634386 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)