Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

A K Agarwal vs East Coast Railway (Bhubaneswar) on 22 February, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                       के न्द्रीय सच
                                                   ू ना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                      बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ECRBH/A/2020/125455-UM

Mr. A K Agarwal

                                                                          ....अपीलकताा/Appellant

                                             VERSUS
                                               बनाम



CPIO
East Coast Railway,
Office of the Principal Chief Operations Manager,
Bhubaneswar-750017



                                                                             प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent



Date of Hearing       :             21.02.2022
Date of Decision      :             22.02.2022

Date of RTI application                                                    13.12.2019
CPIO's response                                                            14.04.2020
Date of the First Appeal                                                   15.05.2020
First Appellate Authority's response                                       Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                       02.09.2020

                                           ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points, as under:-

etc. The CPIO, East Coast Railway, vide letter dated 14.04.2020 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Present through AC Respondent: Absent The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that he had sought information regarding the notification containing the classification of passenger trains as Superfast/Mail/Express/Fast Passenger and Passenger. He said that incomplete information has been furnished to him. The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. In spite of several efforts made by the Commission he could not be connected.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish detailed revised reply to the Appellant strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

                                                                   (Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
                                                        (Information Commissioner) (सच       ु )
                                                                                     ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy

(अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 22.02.2022 Page 3 of 3