Central Information Commission
Shiv Kumar Jha vs Northern Railway on 12 June, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba GangnathMarg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NRAIL/A/2017/169832
Shiv Kumar Jha ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. The CPIO, M/o. Railways, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Northern Railway, Delhi
Division, State Entry Road,
N.D.
2. The CPIO, M/o. Railways,
Western Railway, Ajmer
Division, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. The CPIO, M/o. Railways,
Northern Railway, Ferozepur
Division, Ferozepur, Punjab.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : Dated Nil FA : 07-08-2017 SA: 05-10-2017
CPIO : 10-08-2017 FAO : Not on record. Hearing: 11-06-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Railways, Page 1 of 5 Northern Railway seeking information on 10 points, including, inter-alia: (i) copy of portion of charts of sleeper class of train no. 12414 Puja Superfast Express during the journey from Pathankot Cantt. to Alwar prepared by TTE for allotment of seat to passengers inside train on the under mentioned dates; and (ii) provide totals no. of seats allotted by TTE to General Class Ticket holders and no. of passengers holding RAC/ Waiting list tickets on the under mentioned dates along with name of TTE staff checked on the dates as mentioned in the RTI application, etc.
2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the CPIO, the appellant filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information to him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent no. 1, Shri Madhukar Shyam, ACM/OBS was present in person. The respondent no. 2, Shri Harphool Singh Chaudhary, DFM participated in the hearing through video- conferencing. The respondent no. 3, Shri Sandaldeep, ACM participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The respondent no. 1 submitted their written submissions dated 06.06.2019 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent no. 1 submitted that they have received RTI application of the appellant on 07.07.2017 and they have transferred the RTI application to the respondent no. 2 on 10.08.2017.
6. The respondent no. 2 submitted that they have received the RTI application from the respondent no. 1 on 30.08.2017 and given reply to the appellant on 28.09.2017 vide which they have asked the respondent to deposit Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 750/- towards copying charges in order to obtain reservation chart and PNR Page 2 of 5 data of coach they may indicate. During the hearing, the respondent no. 2 took another plea that the appellant has not mentioned specific coach for which he wants the information. Again, the respondent added that reservation chart are preserved for a period of 6 months only, as per their record retention policy.
7. The respondent no. 3 submitted that on 10.06.2019, the information which is related to them has been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondents and after perusal of records, observes that there is a delay in transferring the RTI application of the appellant and apparent unreasonable time gap in transit which is unexplained. The Commission is unable to understand that as to why respondent no. 2 received the RTI application of the appellant on 30.08.2017 which was transferred by the respondent no. 1 on 10.08.2017 with over 20 days in transit. The Commission takes a very serious view of this lapse and advised the respondents to be cautious in future to ensure timely dispatch after approval of the communication.
9. The Commission further observed that the respondent no. 2 has wrongly asked for photocopy charges from the appellant, as the same has not been asked within the stipulated period of time as per the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission vide Order No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000697 dated 22.11.2012 had observed that:
"4. ........ it is implied in the prescribed time limit that the demand for the photocopying charges must be made soon after the RTI application is received so that the information seeker has time to deposit the fees and receive the information within the prescribed thirty day period."
10. Moreover, copying fee rules of the Railways are not consistent with the RTI rules. The photocopy charges must be in accordance with the RTI rules. In the Page 3 of 5 interest of justice, the respondent no. 2 is directed to provide information as sought by the appellant as per his RTI application, free of cost, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 11-06-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. Shri Shiv Kumar Jha
2. The CPIO,
M/o. Railways, DCM& PIO/SS
Northern Railways, DRM's Office,
Delhi Division, State Entry Road,
New Delhi-110055
3. The CPIO,
M/o. Railways, PIO, North Western
Railways, DRM's Office,
Ajmer division, Ajmer,
Rajasthan
4. The CPIO,
Page 4 of 5
M/o. Railways, Sr. DMM& PIO,
Northern Railways, DRM's Office,
Ferozepur Division,
Ferozepur, Punjab- 152001
Page 5 of 5