CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000427
Dated, the 31st July, 2009.
Appellant : Shri R.K. Sinha
Respondents : Coal India Limited
Hearing in this second-appeal was held through videoconferencing
on 06.07.2009 with the appellant and the respondents participating in
the hearing from NIC Studios at Burdwan and Kolkata respectively.
Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 22.07.2008 was replied to by
CPIO on 22.08.2008. Later, on the basis of the decision of the Appellate
Authority dated 17.10.2008, CPIO furnished further information to the
appellant on 17.11.2008.
3. RTI-application comprised the following queries:-
“The undersigned submitted an appeal dated 29-11-2007,
(Photocopy enclosed) for ready reference) praying inter-alia,
your kind consideration and appropriate order for settlement of
legitimately due promotion with consequential benefit and
refund of withheld / deducted salary.
Since I have not been communicated about the action taken so
far on my aforesaid appeal, I therefore do hereby seek
information, under the provision of RTI Act, 2005, as follows.
1. Action taken so far on my appeal dated 29-11-2007.
2. How long an appeal, as mentioned above, can be kept
pending for decision.
3. What are the provision under which the entitled salary of
an executive can be withheld / deducted by the decision of
the functional Director’s, ECL, when there was no
punishment order to that effect.
4. Whether the above decision referred under (3) is supported
by any Rule or provision of the Company.
AT-31072009-24.doc
Page 1 of 3
5. If the decision referred under (3) is not supported by any
Rule or procedure of the company, whether the Rule of the
Company allows such decision to be implemented.
6. When such a decision as referred under (3) is brought to
the notice of the Chairman, CIL, what are the provision
guiding settlement of the disputed decision as referred
above.”
4. Respondents stated that reply to appellant’s query at Sl.No.1 was
provided to him on 17.11.2008 through CPIO’s communication to him.
No information was provided in respect of the balance queries on
account of the fact that these were not for any identifiable information
but were in the nature of eliciting opinions, advice and explanations of
the respondents, which took these queries beyond the scope of Section
2(f) of the RTI Act.
5. Upon perusing the records, it is seen that respondents were right
in holding that queries at Sl.Nos.2 to 6 did not qualify to be information
within the meaning of Section 2(f) and, therefore, no responsibility
could be cast on the respondents to reply to the same.
6. Reply to query at Sl.No.1 has already been provided to the
appellant.
7. While it is so, it is directed that respondents may facilitate the
appellant’s inspection of the files and documents relating to his
queries. For this purpose, CPIO, within two weeks of the receipt of this
order, intimate to the appellant a date and time and place for the
appellant to inspect the files and documents. He shall be allowed to
take copies from inspected records without any fee or other charges.
8. Appeal is disposed of with these directions.
Complaint:
9. Appellant stated during the hearing that there have been delays
on part of the CPIO in providing him the requested information both in
processing appellant’s RTI-application and complying with the directive
of the Appellate Authority.
10. It is seen that there were following delays in the CPIO’s reply to
the appellant and his compliance with the directive of the Appellate
Authority:-
AT-31072009-24.doc
Page 2 of 3
Event Date
Appellant filed his RTI-application addressed to CMD, Coal India Ltd. 22.07.2008
CPIO received the RTI-application 25.07.2008
CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant 22.08.2008
Appellant received CPIO’s reply 26.08.2008
Appellant filed his first-appeal 16.09.2008
Appellate Authority passed his order directing GM (P) to provide 17.10.2008
information for query at Sl.No.1 within 25 days.
GM(P) furnished information to CPIO 12.11.2008
CPIO transmitted it to the appellant 17.11.2008
11. When the matter was posed to the respondents, they stated that
the initial delay made out by the appellant was only for a marginal
4 days. There was a delay of 5 days in complying with the Appellate
Authority’s decision by the CPIO, which was on account of the fact that
the range of the information requested by the appellant being what it
was, it became necessary to examine several records, documents, files,
etc., which led to some marginal delays. Respondents pleaded that the
delays were not without any reasonable cause and could be entirely
explained by the circumstances.
12. While I would have been happy had the CPIO been more alert in
acting on the orders of the Appellate Authority, I do not wish to hold it
against him on account of the fact that, as explained by him, the delays
were wholly unintentional and were covered by the reasonable cause
provision of Section 20 of the RTI Act.
13. There shall be no further proceeding in this regard.
14. Complaint closed at the Commission’s level.
15. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-31072009-24.doc
Page 3 of 3