CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000704
Dated, the 12 November, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri Subhash Kumar Singh
Respondent : Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad
s
This matter came up for hearing through videoconference (VC) on
04.11.2010 pursuant to Commission’s notice dated 12.10.2010. Appellant
was present at NIC VC facility at Burdwan, while the respondents ―
represented by the CPIO, Shri A.N. Pathak ― were present at NIC VC
facility at Dhanbad. Commission conducted the hearing from its New
Delhi office.
2. Appellant, through his RTIapplication dated 29.03.2010, requested
disclosure of the following information:
“1) अअअअअअअ अअअअअअअअअ अअअअअअ अअ अअ.अअ.अअ.अअ. अअ
अअअ अअअअअ अअअअअअअ अअ |
2) अअअअ अअअअअअ अअअ अअ. अअअ अअअअ 1994 अअ
अअअअअअ अअअअअ अअअअअअअ अअअअअअअअअअ अअ
अअअअअ अअअअ 1994 अअ अअअ अअअ अअअ अअअ अअअअअअ
अअ. अअ अअअअअ अअअअअअअअअ अअअअ अअअ अअअअअअ
अअअअ अअअ अअ अअअ अअ अअअअअअ अअअअअअअअअअ
अअअअअ अअ अअअअअ अअअअ अअ अअअअ अअअअ |
अ) अअअअ 1994 अअ अअ.अअ.अअ.अअ. अअअ अअअअअअ अअअ
अअअअअअअअअअअअ अअ अअअ अअअअअअ अअअअअ अअ, अअअअ अअअअ
अअअ, अअअ, अअअअअ, अअअअअअअअ अअ अअअअअ अअ अअअ अअअअअ,
CIC_AT_A_2010_000704_M_45652.doc
Page 1 of 3
अअअअअअअअ अअ अअअअअअअअ अअअ अअअअअअअअअ अअअअअअअ अअ
अअअअअ, अअअअअ 15 अअअअअअ अअअ अअअअअ अअअ अअ अअअ अअ
अअअअअअअअअ अअ अअअ अअअअ अअअअअअअअअ अअ अअअअ अअअअ
अअअअअअअअ अअ अअअअ अअअअ अअअअअअअअ अअअअअअअ अअअ
अअअअअअअअअ अअअअअअअ अअ अअअअअअ अअअअअअ अअ अअअअ /
Verification अअअअअअ अअअ अअअ अअअअ अअअअअ अअअ अअ अअअअअ,
अअअअअअअ अअअअअ अअअअअअ अअअअअ / अअअअअ अअअ अअअ अअ
अअअअ अअअ |
अ) अअअअ 1994 अअ अअअअअअ अअअअअअअअअअ अअअ
अअअअअअअअअअ अअ अअअ अअअअअअअअ अअअअअअअअअ अअ
अअअअअअ अअअअअअ अअ अअअअअअअअअअअ अअअअ अअअअअ
अअअअअअ अअअअअ अअअ |”
3. Through CPIO’s communication dated 06.05.2010, he was given
information relating to point at Sl.No.1 of his RTIpetition, but the other
information was denied citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. Appellant has comeup in secondappeal against the above
decision, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
5. It is true that the appellant has asked for a vast array of information
beginning with 1994 till today in respect of over 2000 Executives
employed by the public authority. Collecting and collating this range of
information in the detailed manner appellant has sought will be both a
labourious and voluminous exercise, which will inevitably involve
diversion of the respondents’ resources. This shall be covered by Section
7(9) of the RTI Act.
6. In the present case, given the fact that there are over 2000
Executives as of now and if the numbers of those who served the public
authority since 1994 and were now retired or have left the organization
were to be added to this number, collecting this information could be a
difficult and expensive task.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000704_M_45652.doc
Page 2 of 3
7. In my view, given the nature of this query and the range of the
information including the details of information, it is not possible to collect
and collate it for disclosure to appellant.
8. It would be entirely reasonable not to authorize disclosure of such a
large range of information as requested by the appellant. It is also to be
noted that all such information is not held in a central place and will need
to be extrapolated from thousands of different files, documents and
records. Such an exercise is not contemplated under the RTI Act.
Appellant may refer to Commission’s decisions in Rajendra Singh Vs.
CBI; Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00967; Date of Decision: 19.06.2009
and Mohd. Asad Hyat Vs. Registrar General, India; Appeal No.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00300; Date of Decision: 13.12.2006.
9. However, respondents / CPIO may supply to the appellant a
directory of officers as they hold positions now. This is a disclosable
information under Section 4(1)(b)(ix) of RTI Act. Time 3 weeks.
10. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
11. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CIC_AT_A_2010_000704_M_45652.doc
Page 3 of 3