Central Information Commission Judgements

Smt. Rohini Vinayak Unawane vs Indian Rare Earth Ltd. on 12 December, 2008

Central Information Commission
Smt. Rohini Vinayak Unawane vs Indian Rare Earth Ltd. on 12 December, 2008
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
             No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01271-SM dated 01.10.2007
           Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)

                                                              Dated 12.12.2008

Appellant :          Smt. Rohini Vinayak Unawane

Respondent :         Indian Rare Earth Ltd.

This appeal was taken up through video-conferencing.

The Appellant was present in the NIC studio at Mumbai.

On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in the NIC
studio at Mumbai:-

(i) Sh. K. Suresh, Senior Manger (Legal)

(ii) Sh. Deshpandey, CPIO

(iii) Sh. Arun Kedare, Assisting CPIO

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2. Smt. Unawane had approached the CPIO earlier under the RTI Act seeking
a number of information in respect of the compassionate appointment of the
dependent of somebody named Late Shri D. Y. Oke. She also wanted to know
about the payment of provident fund, gratuity etc., to the dependent of the said
Late Shri Oke. The CPIO had replied to her letter of 12.01.2007 on 23.03.2007,
i.e., beyond the stipulated period. On the question of delay in response, the
Respondents said that her letter had been received late. Smt. Unawane sought
further clarification on the reply given to her from the CPIO of the Public
Authority. The CPIO advised her that if she was not satisfied with the reply given
to her, she could file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the
Company. Thereafter, she approached the Appellate Authority who decided her
appeal and directed the CPIO to provide some further information which,
according to the Respondents, was provided to her. Now, not satisfied with the
decision of the Appellate Authority, she has approached this Commission on
second appeal.

3. In the Appeal, she has raised mainly one issue, namely, that the Public
Authority did not give her the family background report of Ms. Shambhavi Oke,
the daughter of Late Sh. D. Y. Oke. The Respondents submitted that no family
background report on Ms. Oke was available with them and they had informed
the Appellant about the non-availability of any such record. They reiterated again
that no family background report of Ms Oke was available with them. We
appreciate that if certain information is not available with the Public Authority,
they cannot obviously be required to give any such information. There is no more
to be done in this case, hence, we close this matter without any further direction
or observations.

4. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the
CPIO of this Commission.

Sd/-

(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar