Central Information Commission
Balaji vs Southern Railway on 14 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SORLY/A/2024/619669
Balaji M. .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Southern Railway,
Headquarters,
Poonamallee High Road,
NGO Annexe, Park Town,
Chennai - 600 003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.01.2026
Date of Decision : 14.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 11.03.2024 & 28.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 31.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 26.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Request for Information and Documents Regarding the Status of the Long-Pending New Railway Line Project from Tindivanam to Tiruvannamalai.
I am writing to request information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding the status of the new railway line project announced in Page 1 of 4 2006, which is proposed to run from Tindivanam to Tiruvannamalai. Specifically, I am seeking the following details:
Detailed Information: I kindly request detailed information regarding the current status of the project, including any updates, milestones achieved, and future timelines.
Detailed Drawings with Location Markup: It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide detailed drawings with location markings, particularly for the Kadambai Village and Somasipadi Post area proposed locations along the new railway line route.
Nearest Railway Station: As per the project design, I am interested to know which railway station would be the nearest for the residents of Kadambai Village. This information would greatly assist in understanding the accessibility and connectivity benefits for our community.
I believe that the provision of this detailed information and drawings will greatly benefit the well-being and awareness of our residents. Note: Refer attachment for location."
2. The PIO vide its letter dated 11.03.2024 had provided reply to the Appellant, which states as under:
"Tindivanam-Tiruvannamalai New Railway line project is kept in abeyance as per Railway Board vide D.O. letter No. 2019/W- 1/Genl/Budget/1 dated 26.09.2019. Hence, these details can not be ascertained at this juncture. However, you are at liberty to visit the office on any convenient date under prior appointment to seek specific clarifications, if any."
3. The PIO furnished a online reply to the Appellant on 28.03.2024 stating as under:
"Disposed already plz."
4. TheAppellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.03.2024. The FAA disposed of first appeal vide order dated 26.04.2024.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 4Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Kumar Subramanian, Assistant Executive Engineer (Constructions) and authorized representative of the PIO present through Video-Conference.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 09.05.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete factual position in the matter as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 11.03.2024. The FAA had disposed of the first appeal of the Appellant vide order dated 26.04.2024.
8. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent stated that letter dated 11.03.2024 was sent to the Appellant through post and online reply was later updated on their portal on 28.03.2024. They have categorically informed that the said project was kept on abeyance.
Decision:
9. The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise of the instant appeal was non-receipt of desired information. The Commission observes that the PIO has categorically informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant vide letter dated 11.03.2024.
10. 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 cannot create information as per the desire of the Appellant. The PIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the Public Authority.
11. The Commission observes from the Second Appeal of the Appellant that he may not have received letter dated 11.03.2024 of the Respondent. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to again send a copy of their Page 3 of 4 reply dated 11.03.2024 to the Appellant, through speed-post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
12. No further relief can be granted in the matter.
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 011-26107040 Date : 14.01.2026 Copy To:
The FAA, Southern Railway, Headquarters, Poonamallee High Road, NGO Annexe, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003 Shri Balaji M. Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)