Central Information Commission
Dr.Dinesh Kumar Mittal vs Ministry Of Railways on 11 October, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2010/000957
Dated: October 11, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Dr. Dinesh Kumar Mittal
Name of Appellate Authority : Northern Railway, New Delhi.
Background
1. The RTI application was filed by the Applicant on 7.1.2010 with the Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi stating that he alongwith his wife had traveled from Delhi to Jammu Tawi by train no.2413 on 24.12.2009 and that they were allotted RAC 1 & 2 at the time of preparation of chart and were offered one seat for both of them and also that the TTE told them that as soon as a vacant berth is available they would be provided with the same. In this connection he sought information against 6 points as follows:
(a) Was there any cancellation of ticket after the preparation of chart?
(b) Was there any "no show" of any passenger at the time of departure of the train?
(c) Was any berth got vacant before the final destination i.e., passenger got down before the final station i.e. Jammu Tawi (JAT)
(d) If the answer to question no.1,2 & 3 is yes, why no berth offered to me?
(e) If the answer to question no.1,2 & 3 is yes, the vacant birth is offered to whom and on what basis?
(f) Who is responsible for this and what action can be taken against him?
The PIO, Baroda House transferred the RTI application to the PIO, DRM Office, Ambala on 9.2.10 with the direction to provide requisite information to the Applicant while endorsing a copy of the reply to him. On not receiving any reply from the PIO, Ambala, the Applicant filed a first appeal with the Appellate Authority, New Delhi stating that no reply had been received by him till date. On not receiving any reply from the Appellate Authority also, the Appellant filed a complaint before the Commission on 14.6.10 complaining about the PIO and the others concerned and seeking the information once again.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for October 11, 2010.
3. Shri Deomani PIO, Shri T.R. Sharsar, PIO, Ambala & Shri Pradeep Kumar, PIO Ferozpur and others represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent, Baroda House submitted that the information sought pertained to 2 Divisions namely Ambala and Ferozpur and hence the RTI application was transferred from Head Quarters to the Ambala Division and Ferozpur Divisions on 12.2.10. The PIO Ambala provided their part of information on 26.3.10 i.e., information against point 1, 2 & part reply of point 3, received from Ferozepur.(The reservation chart upto Ludhiana) . With regard to point 3, the PIO Ambala stated that as per the information received in their office from Ludhiana Division, the Complainant was offered a berth in B2 Coach which he had refused to accept as he wanted a berth in B3 coach itself in which he had already been allotted a berth in his wife's name. According to the PIO Ferozpur the Complainant was offered a Berth in B2 coach at Ludhiana by the new TTE after the train crossed Ludhiana which the Complainant had ultimately accepted, as per the chart available with him. All this information had been provided to the PIO Ambala Division and New Delhi Office by the PIO Ferozpur. As far as the first appeal which was again transferred by the New Delhi office to both the Ambala and Ferozpur Divisions, the PIO Ambala submitted that his office had not received the first appeal whereas the PIO Ferozpur was not sure of the whereabouts of the appeal since he had been designated as the PIO only 15 days ago.
6. The Commission noted from the submissions by the Respondents that the information as available with the Ambala Division had been provided to the Appellant along with part of the information from Ferozpur Division. It was also noted that all the facts in respect of the berth offered to him in B3 coach had not been placed before the Commission by the Complainant as also the fact that he had earlier refused to accept the berth but had done so after crossing Ludhiana. The Commission further noted the contention of the Respondents that no action is being taken against any official responsible for the alleged nonallotment of the berths since no irregularity as such had been found by the Railway official with respect to allotment of berth to the Complainant.
7. The Commission after hearing the Respondents and on perusal of the submissions by the Respondents holds that available information has been provided by PIO, Ambala and directs the PIO Ferozpur to provide the factual position with regard to the missing part of point 3, to the Appellant by 15 th November, 2010. This order may be forwarded to PIOs Ambala and Ferozpur by PIO, NR, Baroda House.
8. The complaint is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Dr. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mittal H34/134, Sector3, Rohini Delhi 110085
2. The Public Information Officer Northern Railway Head Quarter's Office Baroda House New Delhi.
3. Officer Incharge, NIC