Central Information Commission
Tanmoy Bag vs South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 16 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SERLK/A/2024/109997
Tanmoy Bag .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
Southeastern Railway Adra
Division, Adra - 723121 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.09.2025
Date of Decision : 16.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 29.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 08.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.02.2024
Compliance of FAA order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.12.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"I Tanmoy Bag working as LP (S)/Gr-1 under the CC/IC Adra. As per CMS record my KMA arrears of the period of 07/2017 to 05/2019 to be paid less Amount. I already appeal several times finally i registered grievance in grievance register but not solved less payment KMA arrears till date by personal department. One another matter as per RBE NO:-85/2022 night Page 1 of 5 duty allowance effect on 04/07/2022 but NDA to be paid me from 11/08/2022. Please give me some information given below.
1-Let me provide information less payment of KMA arrears either paid or not 2-Let me provide information cause of delay of KMA arrears Payment 3-Let me provide informative effect date NDA as per RBE NO 85/2022"
2. The CPIO, Asst. Personnel officer, Sr. Div. Personnel officer/Adra furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 29.12.2023 stating as under:
"1 KMA Arr paid Rs. 9269/- for the month of June 2022(Copy enclosed) 2 Non-availability of fund.
3 The effective date of NDA is as per RBE No. 85/2022 i.e 04.07.2022."
3. The CPIO, Asstt. Personnel officer, Sr. DPO, Adra furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 01.02.2024 stating as under:
"1 KMA arrrears period from 07/2017 to 05/2019 is prepared and ported by CRIS IPAS which has been drawn Rs 9629/-in favour of sri Tanmoy Bag in the month of June-2022.
2 No such issue at present."
4. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 02.02.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
6. A written submission dated 27.08.2025 filed by Ms. Seema Kumari, IRPS/ PIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"... वषय: Notice of hearing for appeal/complaint स दभः File No. CIC/SERLK/A/2024/109997 Date 12.08.2025
(i) Application preferred by Shri Tanmoy Bag seeking information under RTI Act, 2005 dated 02.12.2023 Page 2 of 5
(ii) APO/Adra's letter No.SER/P-ADA/RTI/BMS/TB/23 dated. 29.12.2023
(iii) PIO &Sr. DPO/Adra's letter No. SER/P-ADA/ONR/Case 1005/TB/23ettl./SD/23 dated 29.12.2023
(iv) Appeal to First Appellate Authority dated 08.01.2024
(v) 1 AA & ADRM/Adra's reply under letter No. SER/P-ADA/RTI/BMS/TB/24 dated 01.02.2024
(vi) Appeal to Second Appellate Authority & CIC dated 12.08.2025 receive by this office Dtd. 25.08.2025
1. Shri Tanmoy Bag of Station Road, Bhairabtala, Po-Bishupur, Distt- Bankura, PIN-722122(WB) preferred application for information under ref
(i) above.
2. Shri Tanmoy Bag has been provided the information on 29.12.2023 vide ref (ii) above which has been communicated by PIO &Sr. DPO/Adra vide his letter dated 29.12.2023 under ref (iii).
3. Shri Tanmoy Bag preferred appeal to First Appellate Authority on 08.01.2024 under ref (iv).
4. First Appellate Authority & ADRM/ Adra replied on 01.02.2024 under ref
(v) to the applicant."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Soumil Kandimal, APO along with Shri Amit Madha, Office Superintendent present through video conference.
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 22.03.2024 is available on record. The Appellant confirms service of Second Appeal on the Respondent.
8. The Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of their reply stated that pointwise along with relevant available information has already been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 29.12.2023 and 01.02.2024 which was further affirmed by the FAA while disposing the First Appeal.
9. The Appellant contended that his complete dues of KMA arrears has not been released by the Respondent organization. In this regard, he sought intervention of the Commission. The Bench apprised the Appellant that the CIC has no power to resolve grievances under the RTI Act or to issue directions to the Public Authority as in a Writ of Mandamus.
Page 3 of 5Decision:
10. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that as far as RTI Application is concerned, appropriate response has been provided to the Appellant vide letters dated 29.12.2023 and 01.02.2024, and again through written submission dated 27.08.2025 by the Respondent, which are as the provisions of the RTI Act, and are thus, upheld. During the hearing, the Respondent categorically stated that there are no other documents on the subject in the record than what is already provided to the Appellant.
11. It is noteworthy that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant.
12. It was noted during the hearing that the Appellant is embracing his grievance during hearing, and no specific information has been sought by him as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6...proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)
14. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
15. While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
Page 4 of 5"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. Having observed as above, the intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway Adra Division, Adra - 723121 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)