CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000191
Dated, the 13 May, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri S.N. Singh
Respondent : Northern Coalfields Limited
s
Matter was heard through videoconferencing (VC) on 04.05.2010 in
the presence of both parties. Appellant was present in person at NIC VC
facility at Sonbhadra, while the respondents ― represented by the CPIO,
Shri B.C. Mondal ― were present at the same venue. Commission
conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. It is seen that appellant’s RTIapplication dated 16.09.2009
containing six items of queries was replied to by the CPIO on 22.10.2009
informing him that except for one item, viz. item at Sl.No.4, all the rest
were not connected with the department represented by the CPIO.
3. However, Appellate Authority, through his order dated 13.12.2009,
overruled the CPIO and directed that information relating to queries in
appellant’s RTIapplication at Sl.Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 be provided to him
after obtaining it from the holders of these items of information.
4. In his submission before the Commission, CPIO, Shri B.C. Mondal
stated that when he received appellant’s RTIapplication dated
16.09.2009, as the holder of one part of the information was the General
Manager, Khadia on 22.09.2009, he transferred the application to him.
He also transferred the application to Personal Manager
(IR/Establishment), NCL HQ, Singrauli on 12.09.2009.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000191.doc
Page 1 of 3
5. He was informed by the Staff Officer (Pers.), Khadia on 20.10.2009
that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous, hence he be
advised to inspect the documents and records on 28.10.2009 at 10 AM.
The information received from Deputy Personal Manager (IR), NCL HQ,
Singrauli was provided to the appellant on 06.11.2009.
6. When CPIO received the order of the Appellate Authority dated
13.12.2009, he promptly reminded, on 24.12.2009, General Manager,
Khadia to transmit the requested information to the appellant. He was
informed by the Staff Officer (Pers), Khadia Project, through a letter dated
08.01.2010 that the applicant had inspected the documents at Khadia
Project on 28.10.2009 and a copy of the document, as requested by him,
has since been provided to him.
7. During the hearing, it was submitted by the CPIO that appellant’s
request for information from Khadia Project was openended and would
cause the Project’s officers to spend considerable time and expense in
locating these. It was, therefore, suggested that appellant might give to
the CPIO a list of the documents which he wanted to receive and these
could be supplied to him. It was reiterated that appellant had already
inspected these documents.
8. The respondents’ is a fair suggestion. Appellant is directed that
within one week of the receipt of this order, he shall give to the CPIO a
list of the documents he wishes to receive in respect of the records he
has already inspected relating to his several queries, especially query at
Sl.No.1. CPIO will arrange to transmit the requested information to him
after collecting the requisite fees from the appellant, within two weeks of
the requisition for copies of the inspected records by the appellant.
9. It is seen that most of the information has been provided to the
appellant by the respondents with the exception of certain explanations
CIC_AT_A_2010_000191.doc
Page 2 of 3
which he wanted to have corresponding to his queries at Sl.No.3. The
Rules, which he wanted to receive, have been provided to him.
Respondents declined to communicate with the appellant regarding
anything beyond what was contained in the Rules.
10. A part of the information relating to query at Sl.No.6 was provided
to the appellant on 30.04.2010 after obtaining the information from
Deputy Chief Personal Manager (Manpower and Recruitment), NCL
headquarters.
11. No further information need be disclosed relating to these items
(Paragraphs 9 and 10 above).
12. Matter is decided as above.
13. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CIC_AT_A_2010_000191.doc
Page 3 of 3