Names & designations of staff who were on duty in Poorva Express & Mumbai trains during a particular period - PIO: information is voluminous & not maintained in the format in which it is sought; appellant asked to inspect the documents - CIC: order upheld
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 9-7-2012 seeking information about the nature of jobs of certain employees, duties of P (Group) staff from Monday to Saturday while in escorting duty in Poorva Express and names and designations of the staff who were on duties in the Poorva Express and Mumbai trains from 1-1-2010 to 1-1-2012.
2. The CPIO did not respond. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 10-9-2012. The FAA did not respond. The appellant filed a second appeal with the Commission on 5-12-2012.
3. I heard the respondent through videoconferencing.
4. The respondent stated that three points had been raised in the RTI application of 9-7-2012. The respondent stated that the information which was sought on 9-7-2012 had been sent to the appellant in connection with points 1 and 2 on 2-8-2012. The respondent stated that the information on points 1 and 2 was sent by registered post along with the annexure but this registered post returned undelivered.
5. The respondent further stated that in so far as point 3 is concerned, this covers a large canvas and it was very voluminous and at the same time the information was not even maintained on the format in which the appellant had sought the information. Hence, in this light, the respondent stated that the appellant was invited to inspect the documents and it was hoped that the appellant would be satisfied after inspecting the documents because this will also help in getting the information that he was seeking.
6. The respondent said that the letter sent to the appellant had returned undelivered. The respondent stated that the appellant has not yet turned up to inspect the documents.
7. The action taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act.
8. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
9. No intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Santosh Kumar v. Eastern Railway in Decision No.CIC/AD/C/2012/002566/VS/06742