Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Suman Maji vs South Central Railway (Secunderabad) on 23 April, 2026

                                के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/SCRLS/A/2024/127686

Suman Maji                                                 .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
C.P.I.O,
South Central Railway
O/o the Divisional Railway Manager,
Personnel Branch,
4th Floor, Sanchalan Bhawan,
Secunderabad - 500 071                                     .... ितवादी/Respondent

Date of Hearing                      :    22-04-2026
Date of Decision                     :    22-04-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                   Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

 RTI application filed on                :    13-06-2024
 CPIO replied on                         :    01-07-2024
 First appeal filed on                   :    25-07-2024
 First Appellate Authority's order       :    06-08-2024
 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated              :    20-08-2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13-06-2024 seeking the following information:

"I am Suman Maji, EX-Electronic signal maintainer, MTMI station, Secunderabad Division, South Central Railway, PF No- 24229805843. May I please get the following information-

1.Types of leaves and days of each type of leaves allotted to me date wise in the period from 14/01/2022 to 23/01/2024.

2.Types of leaves and days of each type of leaves availed by me, in the period from 14/01/2022 to 23/01/2024 specifying the dates and duration on which leaves were taken.

3.If any leave without pay availed by me in the period from 14/01/2022 to 23/01/2024 then kindly mention the date and the duration of that leave without pay period.

4.Types of leaves and days of each type of leaves in balance in my account on 23/01/2024."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01-07-2024 stating as under:

"1,2,3 &4: LLR copy which contains all the particulars of leave is enclosed, as sought by the applicant. "

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25-07-2024. The F.A.A vide order dated 06-08-2024 stating as under:

"The undersigned has received your appeal dated 25.07.2024 under RTI Act-2005 and the following is advised.

(1) You have submitted an application dated 13.06.2024, wherein, you have asked information on four points.

(2) Further, you have preferred an Appeal dated 25.07.2024 stating that PIO provided incomplete, misleading or false information.

The undersigned has gone through your appeal & application and it is seen from the records that, the information sought by you was provided by Sr.DPO/SC & PIO vide his letter dated 01.07.2024. It is to inform you that the available information was already provided by the PIO w.r.t application dated 13.06.2024. Now, you are asking to clarify the doubts w.r.t information provided by PIO and the same will not come under the ambit of RTI appeal. Further, you are given an opportunity U/S 2(j), to visit the office of Sr.DPO/SC on any working day with prior intimation between 10.00 Hrs to 17.00 Hrs within next three months from the date of receipt of this reply, to clarify the points/doubts raised in your appeal.

In as much as, the information sought by you was furnished by PIO is just and proper.

With this, your appeal stands disposed off."

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Ms. M Girija, APO & authorized representative of the PIO present through Video-Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 20.08.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.

6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 01.07.2024.

Decision:

7. The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of complete and correct information by the PIO as per the RTI application. The Commission observes that complete reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant within the period stipulated under the RTI Act.

8. It is an admitted fact that the PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant.

9. Further, the Appellant in his First Appeal and Second Appeal had challenged the veracity of information furnished by the PIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. Further, the Appellant had sought clarifications from the PIO based on the information received in response to the RTI application. In this regard, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:

10. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v.

Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:

"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)

11. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:

"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."

12. While the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:

"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)

13. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.

14. The Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.

15. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.

16. The Appellant is advised to approach appropriate forum to redress his grievance.

The appeal 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:

The First Appellate Authority, South Central Railway, O/o the Divisional Railway Manager, Personnel Branch, 4th Floor, Sanchalan Bhawan, Secunderabad - 500 071 Suman Maji CIC/SCRLS/A/2024/127686 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)