Central Information Commission
Chandan Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 28 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MORLY/C/2024/110135
Chandan Kumar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025
Date of Decision : 28.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25.01.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 25.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"Supply following point wise material information (in attested form)
1. Please supply punctuality reports received from Zonal Railways and your Directorates necessary action for punctuality of Express mail, Superfast train, passenger trains Page 1 of 4
2. Its generally seen that real time data of trains position not updated in- official portal NEWS so what necessary action of your Directorate in this wrong data feeding in NTES.
3. Please supply all pages (in attested form) of Cabinet Notes of merging Union Railway Budget in Union Budget."
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri K.S. Tiria, CPIO-cum-Director Finance (Budget) and Shri SK Mishra, CPIO-cum-Assistant Traffic Manager, attended the hearing in person.
5. The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6. The Respondent submitted that the relevant information with respect to point No. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application was furnished to the Complainant vide letter dated 08.03.2024 and the same has been placed on record. He added that with respect to point No. 3 of the RTI Application, the relevant information was denied to the Complainant under Section 8 (1) (i) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 22.04.2024.
7. A written submission has been received from Shri SK Mishra, CPIO-cum-
Assistant Traffic Manager, vide letter dated 18.08.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"1. The applicant, Shri Chandan Kumar vide RTI application MORLY/R/P/24/00159 dated 09.02.2024 had requested to provide punctuality reports received from zonal Railway and necessary action to maintain punctuality of trains. Further, requested regrarding necessary action for wrong feeding of data in NTES.Page 2 of 4
2. Vide reply dated 08.03.2024 (up loaded RTI-MIS web portal) the applicant was informed that Several factors affect punctual running of trains which include foggy weather, path constraints, asset failures, alarm chain pulling, agitations, cattle run over, bad weather and other unforeseen circumstances. Based on assessments of factors impeding the punctual running of trains, remedial measures, both short term and long term, are initiated. High priority is accorded to making resources available for speedy execution of critical capacity augmentation as these on completion inter-alia facilitate improved efficiency and reliability in train operations. Root cause analysis is being done on daily basis at divisional, Zonal and Board level regarding the failures affecting punctual running of trains. Based on the analysis, immediate corrective action is being taken. Indian Railway is committed towards ensuring punctual running of trains. Further, Data fed in NTES are also monitored regularly and efforts are being made for correct feeding of data.
3. The first appeal on the RTI was not received in this office.
4. However, the applicant has now approached the Hon'ble CIC and a notice has been received from the Hon'ble CIC in respect of 2nd Appeal filed by the applicant slated for hearing on 20.08.2025 at 11.10 AM.
5. In this connection, it is submitted Indian Railway is committed towards ensuring punctual running of trains. Root cause analysis is being done on daily basis at divisional, Zonal and Board level regarding the failures affecting punctual running of trains. Based on the analysis, immediate corrective action is being taken as feasible.
6. In view of the submissions made above, the non-admissibility of the appeal may kindly be considered"
Decision
8. The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 Page 3 of 4 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily
9. forbidden."
10. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the PIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of the Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint. However, before parting with the case, the Respondent is cautioned to act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act by observing the timelines scrupulously and punctually, in future.
The Complaint is dismissed 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 Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)