के቎ኚरीयसचू नाआयोग Central Information Commission बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नईनिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 शिकायतसंख्या / Complaint No. CIC/SCRLS/C/2022/152224 -UM Mr.BANTUMILLI KRISHNA ….शिकायतकताा/Complainant VERSUS बनाम CPIO M/o. RAILWAYS, SR. DCM & NODAL CPIO, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, RTI CELL, DRM'S OFFICE, COMMERICIAL BRANCH, VIJAYWADA DIVISION, VIJAYWADA, DISTT-KRISHNA, A. P. – 520001 THE CPIO M/o. RAILWAYS, Sr. DPO & NODAL CPIO, EAST COAST RAILWAY, RTI CELL, DRM'S OFFICE, KHURDA ROAD DIVISION, AT & PO- JATNI, DISTT-KHURDA, ODISHA- 752050 …. ्ቚशतवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 01.09.2023 Date of Decision : 25.09.2023

O R D E R

FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information, as under:-

1. The name of the TTE of B5 Coach from Nandyala to Vijayawada.

2. The EDR Report of 18464 Express on 08.05.2022 from Nandyala to Vijayawada, in document from (soft copy) information.

3. As per EDR Report whether any berth alloted to me, in which station alloted.

The PIO vide letter dated 06.06.2022, furnished a reply to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 27.07.2022, furnished a reply to the Appellant and disposed off the Appeal.

Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Complainant: Mr. Bantumilli Krishna attended the hearing, Respondent: Absent The Respondent remained absent during the hearing.

The Complainant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding name of the T.T.E. of B5 Coach from Nandyala to Vijayawada etc. He submitted that the reply which had been furnished is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. While deposing in the hearing, he stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hid information and requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Complainant which is taken on record.

The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Complainant.

DECISION:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by the Complainant and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has been furnished by the CPIO on 06.06.2022 and 27.06.2022, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. No further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter.

The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर (Information Commissioner) (सचू ना आयु

Authenticated true copy (अशि्ቚमाशणत एवं सत्याशित ्ቚशत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव)

(Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक)

011-26182598 शदनांक / Date: 25.09.2023