Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4426
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Sudhanshu Kumar Kanodia – Appellant
Versus
The CPIO East Central Railway, DRM Office, Rail Niketan Bhavan, Hajipur, Bihar – Respondent
CIC/ECRHJ/A/2024/622552 | CIC/ECRHJ/A/2024/622545
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not present
For the Respondents: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta
The RTI Act mandates timely information delivery, where delays must be justified; however, punitive actions are not always warranted.
Headnote:This case pertains to two second appeals regarding non-response and delayed information under the RTI Act pertaining to the Darbhanga-Kusheshwar Asthan New Line. The Appellant sought information on expenses and works pending, asserting that delays contravened Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission found inadequate explanation for delays and directed a response from the Respondent. Key issues included non-compliance with FAA directions, with the Respondent's handling criticized. The decision mandates timely responses but declined punitive measures against the CPIO.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti requests require prompt responses. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 12) |
| 2. non-compliance with faa's directives must be addressed. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 3. penalties should not always accompany delays in information. (Para 14 , 17 , 18) |
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
“ DETAIL ABOUT WORKS WHICH ARE PENDING IN DARBHANGA- KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN NEW LINE . DETAIL OF EXPENDITURE OF SANCTIONED AMOUNT IN TNTERIM BUDGET.”
2. The CPIO transferred the RTI application to the Dy. Chief Engg. I (Construction), Samastipur Division vide letter dated 07.02.2024 stating as under:
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.03.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024, held as under:
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A letter dated 03.11.2025 filed by the CPIO, Shri Vivek Kumar, Sr. DPO/ CPIO, Samastipur is take on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.02.2024 CPIO replied on : 15.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 18.03.2024
First Appellate Authority’s order : 22.03.2024 2nd
Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.05.2024
Information sought:
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
“ Estimate cost of khushehwar asthan railway station and copy of map of same railway station.”
7. The CPIO transferred the RTI application to the Dy. Chief Engg. (Construction), Samastipur Division vide letter dated 07.02.2024 stating as under:
9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
10. A written submission dated 03.11.2025 filed by Shri Vivek Kumar, Sr. DPO/CPIO, ECR, Samstipur is taken on record. Through the same the CPIO transferred the hearing notice to Dy. Chief Engg. (Construction), Samastipur Division.
Relevant facts emerged during hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Dy. Chief Engg. (Construction)-I present through video conference.
11. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record. On a query, the Respondent confirmed non-service.
12. Written submission of the Appellant is taken on record. Relevant contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
“1. I fled an online RTI application on 06/02/2024, vide ECRSP/R/E/24/00043, seeking information regarding the pending work and expenditure of the sanctioned amount in the interim budget for the Darbhanga-Kusheshwar Asthan New Rail Line.
2. My application was transferred on 07/02/2024 under Section 6(3) to the concerned CPIO (Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction), Samastipur Division.
3. Even after the expiry of the statutory period of 30 days under Section 7 (1), I did not receive any information or reply from the CPIO.
4. Due to the non-response, I filed a First Appeal on 18/03/2024 vide ECRSP/A/E/24/00018.
5. The First Appellate Authority directed the CPIO to provide the information However, the FAA did not specify a timeline, and the CPIO has completely ignored the FAA's direction
6. As on the date of fling this Second Appeal and as on today, no information has been provided to me.
7. This prolonged non-supply of information amounts to:
- Violation of Section 7 (1)- deemed refusal.
- Non-compliance of the FAA's direction -Wilful negligence attracting Section 20 (1) and 20(2).
- Harassment and loss caused to me over several months MY LEGAL GROUNDS
1. Section 7 (1) violated No information within 30 days; therefore, deemed refusal.
2. FAA order violated The CPIO has not complied with the FAA's direction, which is binding.
3. Section 20 (1)- Penalty justified The delay is deliberate and without any reasonable cause
4. Section 20 (2)- Disciplinary action justified The conduct shows persistent negligence.
5. Section 19 (8)(b)-Compe
