Central Information Commission
Anshul Gupta vs Northern Railway on 11 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/NRAIL/A/2024/633064
Anshul Gupta .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
C.P.I.O,
Northern Railway
ACM RF-Claims,
Claims Branch, NDCR Building,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi - 110 001 .... ितवादी/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10-03-2026
Date of Decision : 11-03-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17-05-2024
CPIO replied on : 03-06-2024
First appeal filed on : 10-06-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 10-07-2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01-08-2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17-05-2024 seeking the following information:
"I was supposed to travel from Delhi to Jammu on 19.04.2024 via Shalimar Malani Express (Train 14661). The PNR No. of the Journey was 2212425556. The train only went upto DLI and was short terminated thereafter. After confirming the cancellation of the train route further, I had filed a TDR on 19.04.2024 itself.CIC/NRAIL/A/2024/633064 Page 1 of 5
Now, I wish to seek the following information:
1. The current status of TDR filed.
2. All documents processed till date regarding the refund.
3. Average processing time for refund by the Department in case of TDR.
4. A list of officers (complete channel) responsible for processing of TDR.
5. Whether any refund (TDR and otherwise) of any of the passengers of the same train has been processed till date? If so, documents thereof."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03-06-2024 stating as under:
"As per Web Enabled Coaching Refund System, claim for refund of against E Ticket in question is under process of finalisation and very soon you will get its disposal report.
So far as your rest of the queries are concerned, please refer Case No. CICATA2009000077 Shri Gautam Mukherjee Vs DGCEI dated 28012010 wherein Honble CIC has held that RTI Act did not authorize petitioner to ask a multiple queries in a single petition."
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10-06-2024. The F.A.A vide order dated 10-07-2024 stating as under:
"1. This case is registered under Reg. No. 203240583044 and Payment has been arranged from this office vide Pay order no:
735913 Dated 05/06/24 and has been sent to IRCTC for arranging the payment. Payment details in Applicant's account may be obtained from IRCTC.
2. There is no any documents regarding Refund process because all work is paperless and physical file is not generated.
3. According to Coaching Tariff Rules refund of fare against E-
Ticket can be refunded within 90 days.
4. List of officials responsible for processing of TDR in Refunds office are:
a) Assistant Commercial Manager/Refunds
b) Senior Commercial Manager/Refunds.CIC/NRAIL/A/2024/633064 Page 2 of 5
5. The Refund system does not mention any information regarding similar case refund of same train and the same cannot be processed. This information is only available with IRCTC.
Further it is suggested to transfer the case to IRCTC for replying to Queries at S.No :- 1 &5 regarding Payment details and Similar cases refund in fund in same train."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Madhukar Shyam, Senior Commercial Manager and Ms. Nalini Arvind, JGM, IRCTC present in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 01.08.2024 was not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent. He further raised his grievance that full refund amount for cancellation of train was not provided to him. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Appellant stated that he has not boarded the train, despite this fact, full refund amount was not given.
8. 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. The Respondent stated that as per the records maintained by the TT, the Appellant had boarded the train on the said date from Delhi Cantt to Old Delhi railway station. Refund amount given to the Appellant was as per their policy.
CIC/NRAIL/A/2024/633064 Page 3 of 5Decision:
9. The Commission has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and perused the records available on file. It is observed that the PIO had furnished a reply to the RTI application; however, the reply provided by the PIO was vague and not appropriately point-wise, particularly with respect to the queries raised by the Appellant. Merely referring to a decision of the Commission without addressing the queries specifically does not constitute a proper reply under the provisions of the RTI Act.
10. The Commission further notes that the First Appellate Authority, vide order dated 10.07.2024, provided detailed clarification on most of the points raised by the Appellant and explained the status of the refund process as per the available records.
11. With regard to the grievance of the Appellant concerning non-receipt of full refund, the Commission notes the submission of the Respondent during the hearing that, as per the records maintained by the TTE, the Appellant had boarded the train on the said date. Accordingly, the refund amount processed in favour of the Appellant was calculated strictly in accordance with the applicable railway refund rules and policies. The Commission observes that the RTI Act provides access only to information available on record and does not extend to adjudication of disputes or grievance redressal. In the present matter, no deficiency in the information available on record regarding the refund calculation has been established.
12. The Commission further observes that information with respect to points Nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application has been adequately clarified by the Respondent through the FAA's order based on the records available with the Public Authority.
13. However, with regard to point No. 5 of the RTI application, pertaining to whether refund (TDR or otherwise) of any passenger of the same train has been processed till date, the Commission notes that no clear and final reply has been furnished to the Appellant till date.
CIC/NRAIL/A/2024/633064 Page 4 of 514. In view of the above, the PIO, IRCTC is directed to provide a clear and categorical reply to the Appellant on point No. 5 of the RTI application, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, within one week from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
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, Northern Railway ACM RF-Claims, Claims Branch, NDCR Building, State Entry Road, New Delhi - 110 001 Anshul Gupta CIC/NRAIL/A/2024/633064 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)