##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/NERLG/A/2025/603881

Mohammad Shoab Khan .….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

C.P.I.O,

North Eastern Railway

O/o the Divisional Railway Manager,

Izzatnagar, Bareilly,

Uttar Pradesh – 243122 ….(cid:366)ितवादी/Respondent

Date of Hearing : 10-07-2026

Date of Decision : 10-07-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 30-12-2024

CPIO replied on : 13-01-2025

First appeal filed on : 13-01-2025

First Appellate Authority’s order : 13-01-2025

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21-01-2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30-12-2024 seeking the

following information:

“1. What is the current status of the process for the stoppage of train

number 05389/05390 at Ballupur (BAPR) halt? Kindly provide complete

details.

2. Has any proposal or order been issued for the implementation of this

stoppage? If yes, please provide a copy of the relevant document.

CIC/NERLG/A/2025/603881 Page 1 of 4

1 / 5

3. Has the railway department planned any survey or study for this

stoppage? If yes, please provide the report or survey date and the results.

4. What steps have been taken so far for the approval of the stoppage of

train number 05389/05390 at Ballupur (BAPR) halt, and what is the

expected timeline for its implementation? Please provide complete

details.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13-01-2025 stating as

under:

“ Information Provided Your E mail or Reg. Post soon”

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13-01-2025. The F.A.A vide order

dated 13-01-2025 stating as under:

“Information Provided Your E mail or Reg. Post”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission

with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri Jagdeep, Divisional Operations Manager & representative of

the PIO present through Video-Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing

the same in CIC on 21.01.2025 is not available on record. Respondent

confirms non-service.

6. Updated reply dated 08.07.2026 of the Respondent are taken on record

and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

“01 (cid:7408)द० 01.01.2025 से गाडी स० 05389/05390 को ए(cid:6989)स(cid:7079)ैस गाडी कर

(cid:7408)दया गया है. िजसका गाडी स० 15042/15041 हो गया ह।ै

02. इस (cid:7079)कार का कोई (cid:7079)(cid:7021)ताव नही ह।ै

03. इस (cid:7079)कार का कोई (cid:7079)(cid:7021)ताव नही ह।ै

04. व(cid:7016)लुपुर (cid:7021)टेशन पर कम आय होने के कारण ठहराव दनेे का औच(cid:7004)य नह(cid:7277)

बनता ह।ै“

CIC/NERLG/A/2025/603881 Page 2 of 4

2 / 5

7. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that

now at the stage of Second Appeal, they have provided complete point-

wise reply/information to the Appellant as per his RTI application. Upon

being queried by the Commission w.r.t delay in providing reply, the

respondent apprised that inadvertently the dealing clerk had disposed of

the RTI application online without furnishing any reply/information. They

came to know about the instant RTI application when they have received

hearing notice from the Commission. The Respondent further submitted

that DAR proceedings were initiated against the said employee and now

he is retired from the services.

Decision:

8. The Commission has examined the records of the case and the

submissions made by the Respondent during the hearing.

9. At the outset, the Commission notes that the reply furnished by the CPIO

on 13.01.2025, merely stating "Information Provided Your E mail or Reg.

Post soon", did not constitute a valid reply under the provisions of the RTI

Act. The records reveal that no substantive information was furnished to

the Appellant within the prescribed time limit.

10. During the hearing, the Respondent explained that due to inadvertence

on the par