Central Information Commission
Jeetendra H Davtwal vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 2 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/MORLY/C/2024/107615
Jeetendra H Davtwal ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Divisional
Railway Manager, Western
Railway, Opp. GCS Hospital,
Amdupura, Ahmedabad - 382345 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.08.2025
Date of Decision : 01.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11.12.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"(1) Kindly provide me information about any refund being paid for pnr number 860-6655776 date of journey 01-12-2023 for train cancellation from palanpur to adipur train number 20927.Page 1 of 5
(2) Kindly provide me information about any refund being paid for train cancellation of journey date 01-12-2023 for train from palanpur to bhuj, train number 20927.
(3) Kindly provide me copy of rules for refund for train cancellation done by railway department.
(4) Kindly provide me copy of rules for train cancellation done by railway department and facilities being provided to passengers in lieu of cancellation.
(5) Kindly provide me copy of rules for refund for train cancellation done by railway department in case of onward journey ticket passengers."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Dr. Ankur Desai, DCM & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 02.03.2024 is not available on record.
5. Updated reply dated 08.08.2025 of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"1 to 2: In this regard, no refund has been made by Ahmedabad division against the PNR No 860- 6655776 nor any claim for refund has been received to Western Railway Head Quarter Office, Churchgate.
3 to 5: Copy of Commercial Circular no. 65 of 2015 vide dated 06.11.2015 is enclosed herewith in 04 pages for the information sought for in these paras."Page 2 of 5
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"In reference to the above, it is stated that, the sought information could not be supplied to the applicant Shri Jeetendra H. Davtwal, as his application has not been received by the Public Information Officer (CPIO) at Ahmedabad.
After examining the application, it has been observed that, application was addressed to Public Information Officer, Western Railway, Gandhidham whereas at Gandhidham there is no Public Information Officer. The Public Authority of Ahmedabad division, Western Railway has its office in Ahmedabad. For Gandhidham area, there is Area Manager Office-Gandhidham which is a part of Ahmedabad division and far away about 300 km. where there is no PIO. However, upon thorough search in respect of said application at Area Manager's Office-Gandhidham, it is observed that, Area Manager Office did not receive such application. Copy of such letter is attached herewith in 01 page.
After receiving the application with notice by this office the information has supplied to the applicant as per RTI Act, 2005. The Copy of reply is also enclosed herewith in 05 pages."
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that factual position in the matter has already informed now at the stage of hearing of Complaint of the Complainant. The Respondent contended that original RTI application of the Complainant is not received in their office.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Complainant is aggrieved that information has not been provided to him by the Respondent within stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has been provided to the Complainant now at the stage of the Complaint which he has placed on record in the form of written submissions before the Commission which in view of the Commission is an adequate response to the RTI application.
Page 3 of 59. The said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as an updated reply to the instant RTI application, which the Respondent has already shared with the Complainant.
10. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the PIO and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
11. Now, being Complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
12. In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The Complaint 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 Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Opp. GCS Hospital, Amdupura, Ahmedabad - 382345 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)