Central Information Commission
Mr.Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of Railways on 25 September, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/001986
Date of Hearing : September 25, 2012
Date of Decision : September 25, 2012
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal
H.No. 1775, Kucha Lattushah
Dariba, Chandni Chowk
Delhi 110 006
The Appellant was heard via audio on his request.
Respondents
Railway Board
Rail Bhavan
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri J.K. Malhotra, Dy.CCM, Shri S. Manocha, DDTC, Shri Upjeet Singh Dy. CCM, Shri
Krishna Pal, S.O. Ms. Manju Sharma, CRS and Shri Mahesh Kumar, CMI.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/001986
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication (dated 26.11.2011) with the PIO, M/o Railways, New Delhi seeking certain information about reserved quotas of berths and seats in different classes in different trains. He particularly asked about reserved quota for parliamentarians. The PIO replied to this application on 14.12.2011 enclosing the pointwise reply of the concerned section. The Applicant was informed that his queries at item nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 have been transferred to Eastern and Northern Railways for response. Similarly query at item no. 3 had been transferred to Zonal Railway for response. As for remaining queries, the PIO provided the factual information to the Applicant. The Applicant thereafter received a reply dated 02.02.2012 from the Dy. CCM/DB, Northern Railway, New Delhi by which he was asked to pay the requisite fee (Rs. 2/ per page) for supply of 759 pages of information. The Applicant, thereafter, filed his first appeal with the Appellate Authority on 10.02.2012 challenging the demand of fee by the PIO. He also stated that his queries at item nos. 8 to 11 be directed to be transferred to the concerned PIOs. The Appellate Authority decided this appeal vide his order dated 25.04.2012 wherein he held that the Appellant may obtain the information on payment of requisite fee. He also, interalia, recorded that the Appellant's queries at item no. 8 to 11 had been transferred to the Dy. Director/Comm./GII for response, though it was not necessary given the circumstances of the case. The Appellant, thereafter, filed the present petition before the Commission 07.05.2012 commenting on the Respondents' decision regarding demand of fee.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that the fee demanded by the Respondents is not reasonable as, according to him, the information sought by him (i.e. types of reserved quotas of berth/seats in different classes in different trains) cannot run into 759 pages since it would all be covered by some policy of the Railways. The Commission, on examination of these queries, also noted that the disclosure requirement of these queries would be completed if the Appellant is provided with a copy of the relevant policy(s) of the Railways. The Commission also noted that there was no malafide on the part of the Respondents in demanding the fee from the Appellant. They, had demanded the fees only because they could not properly understand the Appellant's requirement mentioned in his queries.
3. In view of the above, it is now directed that the PIO should provide to the Appellant a copy of policy of the Railways dealing with the subject matter of the Appellant's RTIqueries. This will complete the disclosure requirement with regard item nos. 1 &2 of the Appellant's RTIapplication.
4. As for item no. 3, wherein the Appellant wanted to obtain complete details of various types of reserved quotas in all the trains, it is noted that the Appellant here has sought voluminous information. He has not specified any particular train about which he wants to obtain these details. It is, therefore, not possible to allow the disclosure of the information here. The Appellant is, therefore, advised to limit his requirement to some particular trains and make a fresh request to the PIO, should he so wish to obtain the information.
5. As for item nos. 4 & 5, wherein the Appellant enquired about the reserved quotas being provided for first class airconditioned in trains in comparison to the trains running between New Delhi and Howrah/Sealdah, the PIO is directed to provide the factual information to the Appellant along with copies of supporting documents, if any.
6. As for item nos. 6 & 7, wherein the Appellant enquired about the special reserved quota allocated for the Parliamentarians, the PIO is directed to supply supporting documents to the Appellant, if available on record .
7. As regard item no. 8, the Respondents stated that they had transferred this query to the PIO, M/o Parliamentary Affairs for response.
8. Since, as per records, no reply has been given to the Appellant by the said transferee, it is directed that the PIO, Railway Board transfer this point once again to the M/o Parliamentary Affairs for furnishing a suitable reply to the Appellant directly within the mandatory period..
9. As for item nos. 9 & 10, it is noted that factual information has been given to the Appellant. No further disclosure is, therefore, needed.
10. Appeal is disposed off with the above directions, which are to be complied with within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner September 25, 2012 Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal H.No. 1775, Kucha Lattushah Dariba, Chandni Chowk Delhi 110 006
2. Public Information Officer 104 Office of DTC GII Railway Board Rail Bhavan New Delhi
3. Officer incharge, NIC