Central Information Commission
Mr.Ujjal Kumar Dutta vs Ministry Of Railways on 3 November, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001661
Date of Hearing : November 3, 2011
Date of Decision : November 3, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Ujjal Kumar Datta
5/A Milan Park
Kalianibash
PONC Pukur
Kolkata 700 122
The Applicant was present at NIC Studio, Kolkata
Respondents
Eastern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Sealdah Division
Sealdah
Represented by : Shri Ramakant Singh, PIO & Sr.DCM
Shri S.C.Srivastava, Deemed PIO
NIC Studio, Kolkata
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001661
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.21.9.10 with the PIO, DRM Office, Eastern Railway, Sealdah seeking information against five points all related to the action taken on his application dt.8.9.10 addressed to DRM, Sealdah. The PIO replied on 8.10.10 furnishing point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.29.11.10 with the Appellate Authority seeking additional information/further clarification. Shri P.K.Saha, Appellate Authority replied on 28.12.10 stating that the points raised in the appeal did not figure at all in the original application. He added that interpretation of HOER is beyond the purview of the RTI Act. He further stated that 17 pages of documents are available in this regard and can be supplied on payment of Rs.34/. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.24.1.11 before CIC. Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant's representation dt.8.9.10 was in response to a policy letter which has been issued by the Railways and that in the representation the Appellant had that the interpretation of the HOER by the Railway Board is not correct and hence it should be . The Respondent added that from the records he could make out that the decision as given in the letter against which the representation was made was not implemented at all. The Appellant at this stage requested for a copy of the letter indicating cancellation/withdrawal of the policy decision and did not seek any further information .
3. The Commission accordingly directs the PIO to provide a copy of the letter based on which the policy decision to which the Appellant had objected, was not implemented. This information to reach the Appellant so by 3.12.11.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Ujjal Kumar Datta 5/A Milan Park Kalianibash PONC Pukur Kolkata 700 122
2. The Public Information Officer Eastern Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Sealdah Division Sealdah
3. The Appellate Authority Eastern Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Sealdah Division Sealdah
4. Officer in charge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission's decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.