CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000494
Dated, the 31st July, 2009.
Appellant : Md.Muzibur Rahman
Respondents : South Eastern Coalfields Limited
This matter was heard on 27.07.2009 through videoconferencing
with the appellant present at NIC videoconferencing facility at Korba
and the respondents, represented by the CPIO at Bilaspur. Commission
conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 20.02.2009, made a
request for the following information:-
“Ref:- Letter No.Nil Dated 28.01.2009 issued by Joint Registrar,
CIC (Copy enclosed) [sic] regarding safety and security of
Md.Muzibur Rahman as follows:-
1. Kindly provide me ATR on above reference letter with file
noting.
2. Date of receipt of above letter in SECL (HQ).
3. Certified copy of comments given by Shri R.S. Singh,
Director (P) & CMD, SECL (HQ) on above letter.
4. Certified copies of reply to the CIC by SECL, and other
department on above letter.
5. No. of security guards / gunman.
6. If no action has been taken within 15 days of the issue of
above letter on above matter kindly provide me name and
designation of responsible officials and public authority.
7. Copies of Rules / Circulars of penalty / action on violation
of Govt. Order / Direction.
8. If unfortunate incident happen on me and my family then
kindly provide me name & designation of responsible
officials.”
3. Replies were furnished to the appellant through CPIO’s
communication dated 10.03.2009 and the decision of the Appellate
Authority dated 03/06.03.2009.
AT-31072009-16.doc
Page 1 of 3
4. At the beginning of the hearing, appellant stated that presently
his second-appeal was limited to receiving copies of file-notings and
certified copies of the disclosed documents including file-notings.
5. Respondents pointed out that appellant was contradicting himself
as he, having said earlier that replies to the queries at Sl.Nos.1, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8 were not provided to him, now states that only file-notings and
certified copies were not provided to him. Respondents wanted the
Commission to note the attitude of the appellant.
6. Appellant stated that the information he had requested through
his RTI-application related to his personal safety and security and,
therefore, ought to have been provided to him within 48 hours under
the proviso to Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. He requested Commission to
draw up proceedings against the respondents for their failure to do so.
7. On the main plea of the appellant in the second-appeal ⎯ now
limited to disclosure of file-notings in the subject-file and certified
copies of the documents disclosed ⎯ CPIO pointed out that there was
no file-notings, as file-notings are ordinarily understood, in respect of
the subject mentioned and the documents cited by the appellant. The
correspondence was received by the CMD, SECL from the CIC, on which
the CMD made certain remarks and transmitted the document to the
Director (Personnel) for action at his end.
8. Respondents stated that they had no objection to providing to the
appellant a copy of the letter from the Central Information Commission
with the observations of the CMD, SECL recorded thereon.
9. As regards certified copies of the documents, CPIO stated that
these were supplied to the appellant along with his reply as Annexes.
Appellant countered saying that he did not receive the Annexes.
10. It is accordingly directed that CPIO, within two weeks of the
receipt of this order, will provide to the appellant copies of the above-
mentioned record as well as certified copies of the requested
documents after collecting from the appellant requisite fees for
certified copies as per Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act read with
the RTI Act.
11. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
AT-31072009-16.doc
Page 2 of 3
Complaint
12. Appellant has raised a complaint against the CPIO for failure to
provide to him the requested information within 48 hours as it
concerned appellant’s life and personal safety.
13. CPIO stated that contrary to what appellant thought about the
requested information, in the understanding of the public authority, it
was not about life, safety and liberty of the appellant as the
correspondence between two public authorities about whether or not to
take any action to provide security to a petitioner, as demanded by him
on account of alleged threat to his life ⎯ itself could not be a matter of
life and liberty of such person. These concerns were unilaterally raised
by appellant and needed to be examined under the Rules by the public
authority. It was, therefore, incorrect for him to claim that it was a
matter of his life and personal liberty. Demand for provision of security
by an employee of the public authority alone would not mean that the
demand would be accepted as it was needed to be critically reviewed
under the Rules and guidelines.
14. I find that in spite of appellant making the claim that the matters
in his RTI-application related to his life and personal safety, there is
substance in the respondents’ plea that any claim by an appellant about
safety of his life did not automatically transform the request to be one
of life and liberty under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. All requests for
such security by employees of a public authority need to be examined
by the public authority as to whether the security demanded by the
petitioners at-all needed to be provided. This is not a process that
could be completed within 48 hours regardless of the concerns of the
applicant.
15. I, therefore, hold that respondents were right in treating this
application as one within Section 7(1) and not under the proviso to
Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
16. As such, there shall be no complaint proceeding in this regard.
17. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-31072009-16.doc
Page 3 of 3