Central Information Commission
Mr.Somasekharan T vs Ministry Of Railways on 18 April, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001726
Heard through Video conferencing.
Date of Hearing : April 18, 2012.
Date of Decision : April 18, 2012.
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Somasekharan T
3830170/1 Hussain Nagar
Marripalem PO
Visakhapatnam - 530018.
Applicant was not present.
Respondent(s)
East Coast Railway
General Manager's Office
EcoR Sadan,
Chandrashekharpur
Bhubaneshwar - 751 017.
Representative : Shri P K Mohapatra, CPIO
Shri G Shetty, Dy.CPO/PIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001726
ORDER
Background.
1. The RTI application dated 3.2.11 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO/DGM, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar seeking information related to the Inter Railway Mutual transfer. The PIO replied on 16.3.11 providing point wise information and also enclosing 13 pages of information. The Applicant then filed first appeal on 19.4.11 stating that the information sent to him was delayed and also stating that copies of letters have not been attested. The CPIO on behalf of the Appellate Authority replied on 9.5.11 informing the Appellant that after consideration, the Appellate Authoirty had suggested points to be clarified and provide the information available on records after attesting the same. The PIO thereafter vide his reply dated 22.6.11 provided further clarification. Still not satisfied the Appellant filed his second appeal before the Commission on 6.7.11 seeking further clarifications against points 1, 4 and 5.
Decision.
2. During the hearing the Commission reviewed the information provided and decided as given below.
Point 1 : Against this point the Appellant wanted to know the exact procedure followed in implementation of Inter Railway Mutual Transfer. The Commission noted that Policy Guideline have been provided to the Appellant and holds that PIO has no obligation to provide any further clarification. Hence no further clarification needs to be disclosed. Point 2 : He sought further clarifications in respect of the Mutual Transfer Policy. According to the Respondent, this information is there in the Policy Guidelines, hence there no information needs to be disclosed against this point.
Point 3 : The Respondent submitted that there are no such rules for priority and it is only basis of first cum first. The Respondent pointed that against point 3, the Appellant has already been informed that there are no rule for according priority to an IRMT application and that they also explained that IRMT applications are considered on the basis of date on which his name is entered in the entry register meaning thereby the people who came after him will be considered after him. This information has already been provided to him.
With regard to point 3 (a) and (b), to the point focused information may be provided to the Appellant. As for point 4, the Respondent explained that there are no rules for according priority to an IRMT application.
The information to be provided to the Appellant by 20th May 2012.
3. The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar
1. Shri Somasekharan T 3830170/1 Hussain Nagar Marripalem PO Visakhapatnam - 530018.
2. The Public Information Officer East Coast Railway General Manager's Office EcoR Sadan, Chandrashekharpur Bhubaneshwar - 751 017.
3. The Appellate Authority East Coast Railway General Manager's Office EcoR Sadan, Chandrashekharpur Bhubaneshwar - 751 017.
4. Officer In charge, NIC.
In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving (1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant may indicate what information has not been provided.