CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B-Wing, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No.2467 to 2470/ICPB/2008
F.No.PBA/08/296, 339, 340 & 709
July 22, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
[Hearing on 7.7.2008 at 4.30 p.m.]
Appellant : Ms. Sunita Dahat
Public authority: MMTC Ltd.
Mr. Rajeev Jaideva, CGM & CPIO
Mr. Vijay Pal, CGM & CPIO
Mr. A.K. Mahapatra, Director (P) & Appellate Authority
Present: For Respondents:
Mr. Rajeev Jaideva, CGM & CPIO
Mr. Vijay Pal, CGM & CPIO
Mr. Ashok Sharma, CGM (Law)
Mr. B.P. Jain, GM
Mr. R. Thanu, Sr. Manager
Ms. Sunita Dahat-Appellant
DECISION
All four appeals filed by the appellant against M/s MMTC Limited concern
with same opposite parties and issues connected with each other and hence were
taken up together for hearing on 7.7.2008. The hearing was attended by the
appellant in person. The respondent was represented by the following officials:
Mr. Rajeev Jaideva, CGM
Mr. Ashok Sharma, CGM (Law)
Mr. Vijay Pal, CGM
Mr. B.P. Jain, GM
Mr. R. Thanu, Sr. ManagerI have gone through the RTI application as well as replies received in this
connection. It is seen that the replies have gone in all the four appeals. However,
having not completely satisfied with the replies the appellant has preferred these
1
four appeals before the Commission. After going through all the records and after
hearing the parties in a lengthy deliberation, the following directions are issued
wherever necessary in the following manner:
File No. 296: In this appeal the appellant has asked for attested copies of
various documents relating to the functioning of MMTC including copies of audit
reports, agenda and minutes of the meeting for various years. As far as the query
no.1 & 2 is concerned, though the CPIO has denied the information under section
8(1)(d), he has been directed to consider the request once more if the appellant
could be specific in his query. Accordingly, during the hearing itself, the
appellant has chosen the information for the year 2005-06 and it was agreed by the
respondent that the information will be provided after segregating the information
which comes under the exempt category. As far as the query no.4, though it is
purely a third party information, it has been directed that statistical no. regarding
CBI cases be provided to the appellant. Regarding other queries, no intervention of
the Commission is warranted.
File No. 339: In this appeal query nos. 7 & 8 have been transferred to
MMTC by the Commerce Ministry. Though the CPIO has given reply in respect
of query regarding Mr. Sanjiv Batra he has denied the information regarding
minutes under section (1)(d) of the RTI Act. Here the CPIO has been directed to
check up once again in case if the appellant asks for any specific information about
the Board meeting. As regards the query no.8 the appellant denied the statement of
the respondents that the information is already been available in the website. The
CPIO is directed to check up this and update the website information also.
File No. 340: In this appeal though the appellant has been given replies in
respect of all the queries the appellant was not satisfied with the reply given under
query nos. 5 & 6. However, during the hearing, the issue has further been
clarified.
File No. 709: Here a general issue was raised that the appellant has filed her
first appeal at Mumbai office, whereas she should have preferred the same in the
Delhi Office. However, the Commission felt that though the appeal is presented at
Mumbai, it should have been forwarded to HQ and it has been directed that they
should issue proper instructions to their subordinate offices in this connection.
Here the appellant has made specific request on query nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 10 only. As
far as query nos. 3, 4 & 5, the CPIO has been directed to give only the information
regarding creation of posts, agenda notes and resolution need to be given and no
other information need be given. As far as query no.6 regarding Senior
Departmental Promotion Committee, the CPIO has been directed to give the
particulars regarding date of the meeting, members of the Board, candidates who
2
were considered for selection and candidates who were selected and marks
obtained by the selected candidates etc. In the case of non-selected candidates,
appellant’s own marks can be given. As regards query no.10, the information can
be given only when the settlement is complete and final decision is taken.
On the above lines, all these four appeals are disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. Rajeev Jaideva, CGM & CPIO, MMTC Ltd., Core-1, SCOPE Complex,
7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Mr. Vijay Pal, CGM & CPIO, MMTC Ltd., Core-1, SCOPE Complex, 7,
Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. Mr. A.K. Mahapatra, Director (P) & Appellate Authority, MMTC Ltd.,
Core-1, SCOPE Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-
110003
4. Ms. Sunita Dahat, 403, Shalaka, M. Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-
400021
3