Ever felt you’ve been overcharged for your train journey and wondered if there’s a way to get clarity? Many Indian citizens face situations where they suspect unfair practices during travel, especially concerning fare charges. This case highlights how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be a powerful tool to seek accountability and understand the rules that govern public services, even when information seems elusive. If you’ve been charged an excess fare on a train and want to know the rules or actions taken, this article will guide you on how RTI can help.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The RTI applicant in this case had a specific grievance: they were charged an excess fare while travelling on a train from Delhi to Jaipur. The applicant stated that they were only travelling to Rewari, but the Ticket Examiner (TTE) allegedly demanded Rs. 500. When this demand was refused, an excess fare ticket was issued. To understand the legality of this action and to seek recourse, the applicant filed an RTI application with the Ministry of Railways. The primary request was for a copy of the relevant rule that permits the charging of such excess fare. The process, however, became complicated. Initially, the Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the applicant to send an Indian Postal Order (IPO) favouring the Pay and Account Officer, Railway Board. After complying, the applicant received no information and filed a first appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA), stating that the fee had been paid correctly but no information was provided. In a further twist, the Railway Board informed the applicant that the RTI application had been transferred to North West Railway. However, North West Railway claimed they received the covering letter but not the RTI application itself. The Advisor (Freight Marketing) then stated that the RTI application was being sent *again* to North West Railway for the necessary information.
How the Public Authority Responded
The response from the public authorities was marred hiccups and delays. The initial PIO’s request for an IPO was a standard procedure, but the subsequent communication breakdown between different railway departments caused significant frustration for the applicant. The transfer of the application between the Ministry of Railways and North West Railway, coupled with the claim that the application itself was lost in transit, exemplifies common challenges faced applicants. This situation illustrates how inter-departmental communication failures can hinder the timely disclosure of information, which is the very essence of the RTI Act.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the applicant reiterated their grievance. They mentioned that they had been informed that a memo had been issued to the TTE involved, but a copy of this memo, detailing any action taken, had not been supplied. The applicant also argued that the information provided was excessively delayed. The respondent from the railway department submitted that the initial letter received did not contain the RTI application, and it was only received later. Consequently, they claimed the reply was furnished within one month of receiving the actual application. This defence, while plausible, highlighted the administrative challenges and the critical need for proper tracking and forwarding of RTI applications.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC, in its decision, acknowledged the applicant’s request for the memo issued to the TTE and any further action taken. The Commission directed the PIO, North West Railway, to provide the applicant with a copy of the memo and details of any further action against the TTE. This is a crucial directive, ensuring that the applicant receives information about the accountability of the official who allegedly charged the excess fare. However, regarding the delay in furnishing the information, the CIC expressed helplessness. They stated they could not make a decision on the delay because the PIO of North West Railway had only received the covering letter and not the RTI application itself initially. While the CIC ensured the core information was provided, the issue of the delay and the reason for the initial misplacement of the application remained somewhat unresolved from the applicant’s perspective. This highlights a common scenario where the CIC focuses on the disclosure of information but may not always impose penalties for delays if the public authority can demonstrate a plausible reason for the initial non-receipt of the application.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Be Persistent and Document Everything: This case shows that even with procedural hurdles, persistence pays off. The applicant followed up through appeals and ensured their case reached the CIC. Always keep copies of your RTI applications, acknowledgements, IPOs, and all correspondence.
- Lesson 2: Understand Information Transfer Rules: If your RTI application is transferred, ensure you receive confirmation and a timeline. If you don’t hear back, follow up with the original PIO and the transferred department. The PIO is responsible for ensuring the information is provided, even if it lies with another department (Section 6(3) of the RTI Act).
- Lesson 3: Clarity on Delays and Penalties: While the CIC directed the disclosure of information, the penalty for delay was not imposed due to the specific circumstances of the application not being received. This teaches applicants that proving wilful delay or obstruction is key for penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act. However, persistent follow-up can still lead to the desired information.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: For train-related issues, the Ministry of Railways or the specific Zonal Railway (like North West Railway in this case) is the appropriate authority.
- Clearly State Your Request: Be specific about the information you need. For excess fare issues, ask for the relevant rulebook, circulars, or guidelines that govern such charges. Also, request details of any action taken against the erring official.
- Pay the Fee Correctly: Use the prescribed method, usually an Indian Postal Order (IPO) or court fee stamps, payable to the correct officer as specified department.
- Follow Up on Appeals: If you don’t receive a satisfactory response within 30 days (or 35 days if transferred), file a First Appeal within 30 days of the PIO’s response or non-response. If the First Appeal is also unsatisfactory, you can file a Second Appeal with the CIC within 90 days.
Sample RTI question you can use:
“Please provide a copy of the rules, regulations, and circulars under which an excess fare can be charged from a passenger on Indian Railways. Further, please provide details of any inquiry or action taken against the Ticket Examiner (TTE) in connection with the alleged excess fare charged on [Date of Travel] from [Origin Station] to [Destination Station] (or partial journey) on Train No. [Train Number].”
Conclusion
This case serves as a practical guide for citizens who have encountered issues with excess fares on trains. While the RTI process can sometimes be complex, the Act empowers you to seek clarity and accountability from public authorities. your rights, documenting your interactions, and persisting through the appellate process, you can effectively use RTI to get the information you need and ensure fair treatment. Don’t let unfair charges go unchallenged; the RTI Act is your tool for transparency and justice.
