This is the idiotic order of Vijay Sharma, CIC, CIC, New Delhi. Please see the copies of the application and 2nd appeal at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-rlyspkd-salem-divbridgesfup130919appln and http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-rlyspkd-salem-divbridgesfup1309192nd-appeal090114 Isn't this sufficient to brand his a traitor and prosecute him under the applicable laws, at least under Sec 217 of the Indian Penal Code?

1. I
a
(,q
]
I
tln
A
co
N
t)
o
<)
s
A
l)
r{
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor,'B' Wing, August P{rantiBhawari,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110067
Tel: +91-11-26717355
Appeliant:
Decision No.CIClVS I Al2Ol4 lOOO322
Appeal No.CIC/VS I Al2014 lOoO322
Dated: 08.07.2015
-a'
./
,,/ Snrr P.M. Ravindran,
/ 2 I 18,'Aathira', Kalpahy-678003'
Cbntral Public Information Officer,
Southern RailwaY,
Office of Chief Administrative Officer,
Construction, Southern RailwaY,
ts grrtore, eltci-iriai' ffi OC,]8 .
08.07.2015
ORDER
Respondent:
Date of Hearing:
RTI aliplication:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 19.O9.2OL3 seeking
information pertaining to status of certain ROB/RUBs.
2, The CPIO responded on 04.1O.2O13. The appellant filed first appeal
on 18.11.2013 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA response
is noi oii fL:CoId, "i',e a-;rptlal:t iile,l a s.i-cciLc a:lpeal C11- ?ri-.')l.2Ci-ri r't'itll
the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The respondent participated in the hearing through video
conferencing..
4, The respondent referred to the RTI application of 19.09.2013 and
stated that the appellant was seeking information regarding width of the
road cn bridge which is coming up next to the Palakkad town railway
. station along with information about whether heavy vehicles can ply on
.this.

2. 5. The respondent stated that on 04.10.2013, they forwarded the
appellant's :Ul appiicaticn ta. the Chiei Ariminisiracive Olficer,
Construction, Southern Railway, Chennai for providing the details as
sought by the appellant directly. The respondent stated that they do not
have any information relating to this RTI application. The respondent
further stated that this road on bridge is opened now.
6. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
Decision ,
7. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, virithin 30
days of this ord.er, the information relating to the width of the road on the
bridge and whether heavy vehicles can ply on this.
The appeal is disposed ef. Copy of decision be given free of cost to
+L^ *^-+;^^Lr ru Pcti LrL ir.
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
Ul{Dhirendra Kumar}
Deputy Secretary and Deputy Registrar