Central Information Commission
Room No. 305 B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi - 110066
Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000708
CIC/AT/A/2010/000709
CIC/AT/A/2010/000710
Name of the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma
(Mr. Sunil Kumar Chaurasiya was present
on behalf of the Appellant )
Name of the Public Authority : South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Represented by Mr. A.K. Singh, A.A. and
Shri S.K. Mitra, CPIO.
The matter was heard on : 26.9.2011 (Matter was heard through video
conferencing.)
ORDER
Three second appeals filed by Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, the Appellant,
were heard together. Through the aforementioned 3 RTI applications the
Appellant had asked for information regarding labourer dismissed from service
i.e. grounds for such dismissal, disbursement of CMPF and gratuity to such
dismissed labourer, if not disbursed the reasons for non disbursement CMPF and
gratuity etc. The information requested for the past 20 years.
The matter was earlier heard on 13.5.2010 in which the decision of the
Commission was as follows:-
“It is fairly obvious that if the information which appellant has mentioned is
held by the public authority at a central point, it should be made available to the
appellant. Otherwise, there seems to be some substance in the respondents’
plea that given the time period for which the information is requested and, its
wide scope, would make it difficult as well as expensive to compile.
In the alternative, appellant should consider limiting the scope of his
enquiry for the public authority to attempt to provide him the answers.
In view of the conflicting positions taken by the appellant and the
respondents, it is necessary that the matter is resolved through a discussion
between the officers of the public authority and the appellant which could be best
done at the level of the Appellate Authority, who is closest to the point where
information is held and he knows both the difficulty and the cost of collecting and
collating either the whole or a part of the information.
Accordingly, matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority with the
direction that, within four weeks of the receipt of this order, he will hold a hearing
with the appellant and either all or some of the important holders of the
information and decide the best manner of meeting the appellant’s requests.”
In compliance with the aforementioned directions of the Commission, the
FAA vide his decision dated 18.6.2010 has held that since the information
requested for is of the past 20 years and the information is not held by the
Respondent in the manner in which it has been requested, section 7(9) of the
RTI Act is attracted. The FAA has reiterated that if the Appellant were to ask for
specific information, information could be provided to him. However, the FAA
expressed his inability to obtain such specific request for information from the
Appellant since he was not present during the hearing conducted by the FAA.
The FAA vide this order has again advised the Appellant to make a specific
request within 10 days of passing of his order. The CPIO, HQ was also directed
by the FAA to provide the requisite information to the Appellant within 15 days of
receipt of such specific request by the Appellant.
During the hearing the Appellant stated that there is no reason for him to
make such a request since all the information is available with the Respondent.
The Respondent on the other hand reiterate that the information requested by
the Appellant is spread over 20 years and all the information would have to be
collected from Area Officers leading to disproportionate diversion of the
resources of the Public Authority.
After hearing the contentions of the parties, the Commission observes that
the Appellant is seeking information for over 20 years including payment of
CMPF and gratuity etc., which, as per the Respondent is not readily available
with them in the manner in which the information has been requested. The
Appellant also failed to appear for the hearing conducted by the FAA, upon the
matter remitted back to him by the Commission to conduct the hearing. The
appellant instead of making specific request has reiterated his request for
information spanning a period of 20 years. Under the circumstances, the
Commission finds no reason to interfere in the reply of the Respondent.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
27.9.2011
Authenticated true copy
(K. K. Sharma)
OSD & Dy. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma,
District & Sessions court, Ambikapur,
District Surguja, Chattisgarh-497001.
2. The P.I.O.
Southern Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,
Seepat Road, P.B. No.60,
Bilaspur, Chattisgarh – 495006.
3. The First Appellate Authority,
General Manager, Chairman & A A (RTI),
Southern Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,
Seepat Road, P.B. No.60,
Bilaspur, Chattisgarh – 495006.