Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Paramjit Saini vs Northern Railway on 11 October, 2017

                              क य सच ू ना आयोग
                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                        लब बि डंग (पो ट ऑ फस केपास)
                       Club Building (Near Post Office)
                     ओ ड जेन यू कपस, नई !द ल -110067
                     Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
                       Tel: +91-11-26182593/26182594
                       Email: [email protected]

File No.: CIC/AB/C/2016/000239-AB

In the matter of:

Paramjit Saini

                                                            ...Complainant
                                            VS
PIO & Sr. DMM, DRM's Office,
Northern Railway, Unnamed Road, Ambala
Cantt- Haryana- 134003                                      ...Respondent
                                            Dates

RTI application                     :       01.06.2016

CPIO reply                          :       Not on Record

Complaint                           :       22.07.2016

Date of hearing                     :       03.10.2017



Facts:

The complainant vide RTI application dated 01.06.2016 sought information on 2 points; name of the passenger who travelled to the destination by Train No 04997 dated 01.05.2016 originating from Bathinda, Punjab in AC coach against PNR No: 2763676931 and name of the passenger who travelled to the destination by Train No 04998 dated 03.05.2016 terminating at Bathinda, Punjab in AC coach against PNR No: 2863721092. The CPIO's reply is not on 1 record. The complainant without filing a first appeal filed complaint before this Commission and requested for information.

Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.



Order


      Complainant               :     Absent

      Respondent                :     PIO, Shri A.P. Singh, ACM


During the hearing the respondent PIO submitted that they had provided the requisite information vide their letter dated 27.10.2017 which is just and proper and hence the case should be dismissed.

The complainant was not present to plead his case or establish his complaint.

On perusal of the case record, it was seen that proper reply was not provided to the complainant. Only half reply was provided and no section6(3) transfer under the RTI Act was done for which the then PIO, Sr. DMM, Ambala Cantt, is responsible.

The then respondent PIO, Sr. DMM, Ambala Cantt. is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should have been provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said RTI application.

2

The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against the respondent officer mentioned above.

With the above warning the complaint case is closed.

Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 3