IntheCentralInformationCommission at NewDelhi

FileNo:CIC/AD/C/2011/001744

DateofHearing :January13,2012 DateofDecision :January13,2012 Parties: Applicant ShriRavinderRaj WZ2128,RaniBagh Delhi110034 TheApplicantwaspresentduringthehearing Respondents RailwayBoard O/oAPIO1 RailBhawan NewDelhi Representedby: Dr.ShrikantV.JanbandhuJt.Director(Coaching) ShriMarutiKumar,Dy.Director Shri.DharamRaj,SectionOfficer Respondentsarrivedlate. However,thedecisionwasconveyedtothem TheRespondentsarrivedlateforthehearingaftertheAppellanthadleftsincetheywerecaughtin traffic.

InformationCommissioner :Mrs.AnnapurnaDixit ___________________________________________________________________

IntheCentralInformationCommission at NewDelhi
FileNo:CIC/AD/C/2011/001744

ORDER Background 1. TheApplicantfiledanRTIApplicationdt.21.3.11withthePIO,RailwayBoard.Hesoughtinformation againstfourteenpointsrelatedtothedelayinrunningoftrainsduringthelastfiveyearsduetoGujjar JatagitationdemandingcastereservationsincludingthelosssufferedbytheRailways,strengthof RPFandGRPofficialsengagedinsecurityandsafetyofrailwaypassengers,copyofstatutoryrules ensuringproperrunningoftrains,no.oftimesrailwayshasimposedremedialtreatmentincluding recoveryoflossduetoagitationsetc.TheAPIOrepliedon31.5.11enclosingthereplydt.25.5.11 furnished by Jt.Director/Coaching who stated thatinformation againstpoints a, b, and i arenot availableandthatthesepointsarethereforebeingtransferredtoPIOsofNR,NCR,NWR,WRand WCR.TheApplicantfiledanappealdt.27.6.11withtheAppellateAuthoritystatingthattheDivisions areexpectedtoreporttoZonalHQwhointurnareexpectedtoreporttoRailwayBoard.Accordingto him,RailwayBoardisthereforewellequippedwiththefactsandthereforedenialbyRailwayBoardis unjustandunreasonable.Hesoughttheinformationonceagain.Onnotreceivinganyreplyfromthe FAA,hefiledasecondappealdt.11.9.11beforeCIC. Decision 2. Duringthehearingonperusalofsubmissionsonrecord,theCommissionnotedthatRailwayBoard hasonlytransferredpointsa,b,anditothezonalrailwaysandthattheyaresilentinrespectofother points.TheCommissionthereforeconcludesthattheinformationagainsttheremainingpointsother thanpointsa, bandiareavailablewiththeRailwayBoard.ThePIO,RailwayBoardistherefore directedtofurnishinformationagainstallthepointsexcepta, b and i totheAppellantby25212 whilealsoshowingcauseastowhypenaltyshouldnotbeimposeduponhimu/s20(1)oftheRTIAct

fornotrespondingtotheRTIApplicationwithinthemandatoryperiod.Theexplanationtoreachthe Commissionby25.2.12.

3.

Itisalsonotedthattheinformationagainstpointsa,bandiwhichhavebeentransferredtotheZonal railwayshasbeenprovidedtotheAppellantbythePIOsofZonalRailways.Accordingly,thePIOsof NR,NCR,NWR,WRandWCRaredirectedtoprovidetheinformationdirectlytotheAppellantand alsotoshowcauseastowhypenaltyshouldnotbeimposedoneachoneofthemu/s20(1)ofthe RTIActfornotrespondingtotheRTIApplicationwithinthemandatoryperiod. Theinformation shouldreachtheAppellantby20.2.12andtheexplanationtotheshowcausenoticebythePIOsof NR,NCR,NWR,WRandWCRtoalsoreachtheCommissionby25.2.12.

3.

TheCommissionnotedthatAppellateAuthorityhadnotdisposedofftheappeal

dt.27.6.11 within

themandatoryperiodaspersection19(6)anddirectshimtoshow againsthimshouldnotberecommended.He 20.2.12. 4.

explainastowhydisciplinaryaction

may submit his explanation tothe Commission by

ThePIO,RailwayBoardisdirectedtoserveacopyofthisordertotheconcernedPIOs

and the

AppellateAuthorityforcomplyingwiththeCommissionsorders. 5. Theappealisdisposedofwiththeabovedirections.

(AnnapurnaDixit) InformationCommissioner Authenticatedtruecopy

(G.Subramanian) DeputyRegistrar Cc: 1. ShriRavinderRaj WZ2128,RaniBagh Delhi110034

2.

ThePublicInformationOfficer

RailwayBoard O/oAPIO1 RailBhawan NewDelhi

3.

Officerincharge,NIC