dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
*****
Case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00689
Dated: 30.1.2009
Appellant : Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh
Respondents : Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
This is the second-appeal dated 15.5.2007 filed by Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh against the
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), Dhanbad corresponding to his RTI
request dated 28.8.2006
2. In his RTI application dated 28.8.2006, the appellant Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh had
asked for copies of certain documents contained in the following 14 files of the Purchase
Department of the Public Authority:
S. No. File No. S. No. File No.
1. 2(175)97-Pur 2. 2(205)97-Pur
3. 2(235)97-Pur 4. 1(171)98-Pur
5. 1(173)98-Pur 6. 1(176)98-Pur
7. CMRI/PUR/F-1(1)/98 8. CMRI/PUR/F-1(3)/98
9. CMRI/PUR/F-5(4)/98 10. CMRI/PUR/F-9(2)/98
11. CMRI/PUR/F-9(1)/99 12. CMRI/PUR/F-21(3)/99
13. CMRI/PUR/F-21(16)/99 14. CMRI/PUR/F-5(8)/99
3. On receipt of RTI request on 5.9.2006, CPIO advised the appellant to deposit Rs.
10/- towards RTI application fee. The appellant deposited fee on 29.9.2006. On the same
day, CPIO sought assistance of holder-of-the-information Dr. J.K. Singh, Scientist-in-charge,
Stores & Purchase (S&P) Section of the public authority.
4. Vide letter dated 20.10.2006, Dr. J.K. Singh, the holder-of-the-information informed
the CPIO that only two files were available and the remaining 12 files were not traceable.
Accordingly, CPIO furnished an interim-reply to the appellant on 20.10.2006. CPIO also
advised the holder-of-the-information to furnish authenticated copies of those two files to him
(CPIO).
1
5. Vide letter dated 6.11.2006, CPIO asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 46/- as
photocopying charges in respect of 23 pages. The appellant paid the fee on 17.11.2006.
However, since the authenticated copies of the documents were received by CPIO from Dr.
J.K. Singh, the holder-of-the-information only on 11.1.2007, CPIO transmitted the documents
to appellant on 12.1.2007.
6. In the meanwhile the appellant had filed first-appeal dated 27.11.2006. As no
information relating to remaining 12 files were received from the respondents, the appellant
reminded the respondents on 16.1.2007 and 4.5.2007. Finally, the appellant approached the
Commission in 2nd-appeal dated 15.5.2007. The appellant requested the Commission i) to
direct the CPIO to provide copies of requisitioned documents; ii) to fix responsibility for the
delay and to initiate appropriate action against those responsible.
7. Matter was heard in the Commission on 23.8.2007 and 28.12.2007. Respondents and
appellant were present. The Commission observed that it was not clear as to the level in
which delays was occurred in transmitting the information. Therefore, in the order dated
2.1.2008, the Appellate Authority was directed to conduct an enquiry about the delay that
occurred in the matter and to file his report before the Commission. The AA was also
instructed that his Enquiry Report should inter-alia, contain the following items among others
that might be found relevant:
(1) The quantum and the reasons for delay at each level and the officials
responsible.
(2) Specific comments on
a. the dates from which the requisitioned files were available in the office.
b. The officer holding the information / files and Dates these came in his
custody
c. Dates of transmission of files by information-holders (name to be given) to
CPIO.
8. The Head of the Public Authority was also advised to initiate steps to improve the
RTI-system within the organization, including giving adequate RTI-training to the persons
who handle RTI-applications, so that the information-dissemination-process could be easy
and smooth.
2
9. On receipt of Enquiry Report, matter was heard again on 6.5.2008. Respondents were
represented by CPIO & AA; while the appellant was absent.
10. On perusal of Enquiry Report, it has been observed that a number of files, including
the requisitioned 14 files, were sent by Central Mining Research Institute (CMRI), Dhanbad
to the CVO, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi during 2002-03.
11. Out of the requisitioned 14 files, 1 file (viz., CMRI/PUR/F-21(16)/99 appearing at
S.No. 13 ), was seized by CBI and 13 files were returned by CVO, CSIR, New Delhi to
CMRI, Dhanbad in April, 2003. Out of 13 files received back, 2 files viz. ‘CMRI/PUR/F-
1(3)/98’ and ‘CMRI/PUR/F-21(16)/99’ appearing at S. No. 8 & 14 were returned to Purchase
Section and remaining 11 files were with Admn. Section. Though the remaining 11 files were
of Purchase Section, the then Administrative Officer Shri S.K Choudhary did not return
these files to the Purchase Section and kept the files with him.
12. The Administrative Officer Shri P.G. Deogharia, who took over charge of Admn.
Section in April, 2006, was not aware of the said 11 files of Store & Purchase Section lying
with the Admn. Section, nor did CPIO seek his assistance under section 5(4) of the RTI Act,
in the matter.
13. On receipt of the notice from the CIC, the CPIO vide letter dated 16.8.2007 addressed
to Director, CIMFR, with a copy to Admn. Officer, desired to know information about the
seizure list of files by CVO / CBI and as to whether these files were still in their custody. The
AO, CIMFR provided the seizure list to CPIO and vide letter dated 21.8.2007 clarified that
12 files were returned by CVO, CSIR / CBI, except 1 file, which was seized by CBI. The AO
handed over 11 files to Stores & Purchase Section on 14.9.2007, under intimation to CPIO.
On 25.9.2007, CPIO informed the S&P Section to provide the information. Section Officer,
S&P Section sent the information to AA Dr. S.K. Srivastava on 3.10.2007. As the AA was on
tour to Delhi and returned to Dhanbad on 8.10.2007, the documents were forwarded to CPIO
on 8.10.2007. CPIO received the documents on 12.10.2007 and transmitted the same to
appellant on 13.10.2007. On 15.10.2007, the appellant informed CPIO that some more
information was yet to be provided. Section Officer, S&P Section immediately provided the
3
information to the appellant. During the course of hearing in the Commission on 18.12.2007,
the appellant had confirmed that he had got all the requisite information.
14. Since all the requisite information has been provided by the respondents, the appeal
part is disposed of as closed.
15. With regard to complaint, there is no doubt, the information was provided to the
appellant very late. However, on perusal of Enquiry Report and other documents submitted
by respondents, Commission finds that the delay was on account of systematic failure on the
part of the public authority and not any individual’s failure. The delay was due to various
factors, like poor management of record keeping, in-adequate knowledge of RTI Act / rules,
lack of co-ordination amongst various department of the public authority, etc. No malafide
intention for delay in supply of information is established against CPIO / holder-of-the-
information. As such, no penalty proceedings are initiated. The Commission vide order dated
2.1.2008, has already been advised the Public Authority to initiate steps to improve the RTI-
system within the organization. The matter is therefore closed.
16. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(A. N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by
Sd/-
(D. C. Singh)
Assistant Registrar
4