CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001387/8411
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001387
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tinkar,
C/o DPDO, B-89, Gautam Marg,
Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
Respondent : Mr. Ramawtar Meena
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director
Ministry of Labour and Employment
Directorate General of Mines Safety
Anasagar Link Road,
Ajmer – 305001, Rajasthan.
RTI application filed on : 19/06/2009
PIO replied : 14/07/2009
First appeal filed on : 23/07/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 23/09/2009
Second Appeal received on : 07/01/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. How many officials representing the The Deputy Directors of security and safety of
Government of India were present for the CAT the following mines were sent by the
on the following dates - government for the CAT.
10/03/2004, 12/03/2004, 16/03/2004/ 06/08/2004 - Mr Radhe Shyam (Deputy
18/03/2004, 19/03/2004/ 07/05/2004, Director (Vigilance)) and Mr. Narendra
12/05/2004, 19/05/2004, 31/05/2004, Murawat (Deputy Director Security)
02/07/2004, 09/07/2004, 15/07/2004, 09/11/2004 - same as above
30/07/2004, 03/08/2004, 06/08/2004, 23/11/2004 - same as above
12/10/2004, 09/11/2004, 23/11/2004, 28/01/2005 - same as above
28/01/2005 and 07/02/2005 .
2. On the following dates, the elaborate details of The PIO has given a detailed information about
traveling allowance, daily allowance and salary the following including the date, mode of
given to the above mentioned officials by the travel , DA and the amount of both the officials.
government. Mr Narendra Murawat - Rs 2082 (TOTAL)
Mr. Radhe Shyam - Rs. 906 (TOTAL)
3. The details of the different lawyers present on The PIO has given details including the name of
different dates for the CAT, in the above the lawyer, the date on which they were present,
mentioned case. What was the work these the fee charged and the money spent on other
different lawyers did, and how much fee did miscellaneous things like stationary and typing.
they obtain through this?
Page 1 of 2
4. Details of the money spent by the Government Same as Above.
on Typing, Stationary, Photocopy and lawyers
etc. in the above mentioned case.
5. The name and details of the First Appellate Mr. Utpal Saha,
Authority. Deputy Director General of Mine safety,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand – 826001.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The detailed answers to the appellant’s questions were enclosed with the FAA’s order.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory Information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tinkar on video conference from NIC-Jaipur Studio;
Respondent: Mr. Ramawtar Meena, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director;
The PIO has given most of the information but is now directed to give the following
information to the appellant:
1- PIO will check the monthly summary record and give the information about officials who were
present for the CAT on following dates 10/03/2004, 12/03/2004, 16/03/2004, 18/03/2004,
19/03/2004, 07/05/2004, 12/05/2004, 19/05/2004, 31/05/2004, 02/07/2004, 09/07/2004,
15/07/2004 and 30/07/2004. He will also give a copy of the monthly summary record to the
appellant.
2- The PIO is also directed to give the attested copies of the bills submitted by the advocates.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant
before 25 July 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
06 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
Page 2 of 2