CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2008/00294
Dated, the 08th December, 2008
Complainant : Mr. Zakir Hussain
Respondents : Central Coalfields Limited
This matter came up for hearing on 18.11.2008. Complainant, Mr.Zakir
Hussain was present. Respondents were represented by Shri Anil Gupta, General
Manager & AA, Shri R.K. Amar, Project Officer and Shri Ambika Singh, Staff
Officer & PIO in response to show-cause notices dated 17.09.2008 issued to the
following:-
(i) Shri Ambika Singh, Staff Officer (Personnel) & PIO
(ii) Shri R.K. Amar, Project Officer
(iii) Shri Anil Gupta, General Manager (B&K) & AA
2. Complainant alleged that there were substantial delays in replying to his
RTI-queries by the CPIO. As per the records furnished by the CPIO, following is
the chronology of events in handling complainant’s RTI-application dated
29.11.2007:-
Date Event
29.11.2007 Complainant filed his RTI-application
04.12.2007 PIO, Kargali received the RTI-application
05.12.2007 PIO forwarded the RTI-petition to the holder of information,
Shri R.K. Amar, P.O., Bokara Colliery
07.12.2007 Shri Amar received the RTI-application
21.12.2007 Shri Amar informed the PIO that the requested information
was ‘policy decision’ nature and cannot be shared with
‘outsiders’.
04.01.2008 Matter referred to GM (Geology) & PIO, CCL Headquarters,
Ranchi for advice.
09.01.2008 Appellant filed his first-appeal before the GM(B&K), Kargali
& AA
13.01.2008 GM (B&K) & AA forwarded the first-appeal to the PIO,
Kargali
30.01.2008 PIO, Kargali apprised the complainant that the desired
information are being sought from the concerned department.
06.03.2008 P.O., Bokara furnished the information to the PIO.
12.05.2008 PIO, Kargali supplied the information to the complainant.
Page 1 of 6
3. From the above, it is now established that delays did occur in responding
to the RTI-application of the complainant at two distinct stages, viz. (a) 99 days
at the level of the holder-of-the-information, Shri R.K. Amar, P.O. Bokaro and
(b) 159 days at the level of the PIO, Shri Ambika Singh after the information was
received by him from the holder-of-the-information.
4. The explanations submitted by PIO, Shri Ambika Singh and the holder-of-
the-information, Shri R.K. Amar have been perused.
5. PIO, Shri Ambika Singh, in his reply to the show-cause notice dated
27.09.2008, has stated that the delay at his level was entirely unintentional and
was caused mostly by his anxiety to ensure that the complainant received clear
and accurate information. According to his explanation, the replies which he had
received from the holder-of-the-information were cryptic and unclear. PIO
considered that transmitting the same reply or allowing the holder-of-the-
information to transmit the reply to the complainant could amount to giving
incorrect and misleading information and there was need to exercise caution
before divulging the information to the complainant. The holder-of-the
information had advised the CPIO that the requested information could not be
provided to the complainant as it related to what was described as “policy
decision” which could not be “shared with outsiders”. It is the submission of the
PIO, that it became necessary for him to repeatedly correspond with the holder-
of-the-information on account of the fact that PIO was unwilling to transmit to
the complainant the information as received from its holder which he considered
lacking substance. Through his letter dated 29/30.01.08, PIO took the precaution
of informing the complainant that information requested by him was being
collected from various officials/departments and would soon be provided to him.
The Appellate Authority on the urging of the CPIO called the holder-of-the
information for a discussion about how best the requested information be
divulged to the complainant or rather how best not to give to him vague and
cursory information. After “holding detailed discussion on different dates and
levels, a final reply was sent to the applicant vide letter no.1081 dated 12.05.08.”
6. The sum and the substance of the CPIO’s submission is that it was only on
account of his anxiety to ensure that proper and correct information went to the
complainant that he withheld the information as received from the holder-of-the
information and transmitted to the complainant only after he was fully satisfied
that the information merited disclosure. He has urged that he should not be
penalized for doing his duty well.
7. The holder-of-the-information, Shri R.K. Amar, through his
communication dated 15.10.2008 has stated as follows:-
Page 2 of 6
“1. I received a letter vide letter no.PD/RTI Act.2005/07/5629 dated
4/5.12.2007 along with application of applicant Md. Zakir Hussain
on 7.12.2007.
2. I wrote a letter vide no.PO/BKO/RTI Act-05/863 dated 21.12.2007
and made a request to advise me some legal difficulties.
3. And finally on 1.2.2008, I was authorized by the PIO to give
information desired by the applicant Md. Zakir Hussain vide letter
no.GM(B&K)/PD/RTI Act-05/07/244 dated 29/30.01.08.
4. The information desired by applicant Md. Zakir Hussain was
related with Personnel Department. A detailed report was
required, to reply the query raised by Md. Zakir Hussain. Hence, I
made a request to Sr. Personnel Officer, Bokaro Colliery to furnish
the details of the same after prima-facie enquiry. Thereafter I
forwarded the same to PIO vide letter no. BKO/PD/RTI Act–
05/08/1077 dated 6.3.2008.
5. Hence, there was no intentional delay on the part of the
undersigned [sic].
6. Although few days delay in transmitting information did occur, it
was due to arranging the information which could only be
available by prima facie enquiry as stated above due to nature of
queries in the application.”
8. Essentially, what the holder-of-the-information is conveying is that the
nature of the information being what it was, he needed to consult his Personnel
Department to formulate his response to the PIO’s query. The matter, being an
old and long-standing one, needed careful and cautious processing lest incorrect
or inaccurate information was transmitted.
9. Complainant stated during the hearing that much of what the respondents
had stated in their defence was without substance. According to him, he had
asked for the following information through his RTI-application dated
29.11.2007:-
“1. How many types of residences are there in Bokaro Colliery Pune
(V and K Area). How many are allotted and how many are in
private occupation?
2. What action is being taken to evict private occupants?
3. What action has been taken so far as my application dated 07/07
[sic] submitted to Project Officer, Bokaro Colliery, CCL?
Page 3 of 6
4. What action is being taken to prevent sale / purchase of quarters?
5. How many quarters have been allotted under Reserved Category?”
10. He claims that the information furnished by the CPIO in regard to query
no.1 is only partial so is the information given corresponding to query no.3.
Replies given in respect of queries at Sl.Nos.2, 4, and 5 are wrong.
11. Complainant further explained that the quarters built by the company
(Central Coalfields Limited) with public funds for the employees of the
Company have been allowed to go into the hands of private parties ⎯ politicians,
journalists, local bigwigs and even muscleman ⎯ who the Company for its own
reasons wishes to keep happy, mostly to escape answering their inconvenient
queries which could dent the Company’s institutional reputation as well as the
reputation of its individual functionaries. This amounted to nothing other than
using public funds to promote personal interests. This is profligacy at its worst
and it is surprising that all these years this has escaped the notice of all
watchdogs including the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
Complainant insisted that there was a wide and unholy nexus under which such
indefensible activities of the Company’s management has flourished. The public
is the loser.
12. When this was posed to the respondents, their reply was halting, weak and
unconvincing. It was admitted that a proportion of the quarters were occupied by
persons other than the Company’s employees. They were not in a position to
state how this came to be and why it was allowed to persist without being
corrected at any stage. They were not in a position to explain what action the
Company’s management had taken to set right this glaring irregularity. When
queried as to why this matter was not informed to the local police and revenue
administration, respondents replied that the police refuse to register cases largely
because the matter involved well-to-do and influential people as well as those
with muscle and money power.
13. From the account which has emerged during this proceeding, it seems
obvious that parts of the real estate of the Company and the houses built thereon
are under illegal and unauthorized occupation of outsiders. The sad part of it is
that this illegal occupation has been engineered by the Company Management
itself ⎯ now as well as in the past. This seems to have been done in total
disregard to Rules and a sense of propriety about utilizing the assets of the
Company for the Company’s own good.
14. I do not think that a mere imposition of penalty in this matter would
provide the corrective to the problem, which has assumed cancerous proportions.
The Management of the Company looks powerless and helpless to correct
something which it knows to be wrong and indefensible.
Page 4 of 6
15. Before proceeding further to take action under Section 19 and Section 20
of the RTI Act against the delinquent-PIO and the holder-of-the-information, it is
considered appropriate that the top management of the Company is called upon
to file an affidavit about the unauthorized occupation of company quarters and
real estate.
16. In the light of the above, the following is ordered:-
I. Within four weeks of the receipt of this order the Chairman and
Managing Director of the Central Coalfields Limited,
Shri R.K. Saha shall file before the Commission a status report
regarding
(a) Total number of quarters that are available for the Company
in its units.
(b) Total number of quarters from (a) which are occupied by
company employees.
(c) Total number of quarters from (a) occupied by persons who
are not company employees including retirees. (Details of
each person should be furnished).
(d) How many from (c) are in occupation of the quarters
through authorization of the Company Management and
how many are in unauthorized occupation.
(e) Action taken by their management to evict unauthorized
occupants (details of eviction notices and other actions
should be provided).
II. Under Section 19(8)(a) of the RTI Act, it is directed that the
Chairman and Managing Director, Shri R.K. Saha will place all the
details about the occupancy of the quarters ⎯ authorized as well as
unauthorized ⎯ on the website of the Company on a proforma /
format that may be devised for the purpose containing all essential
details such as particulars of quarters, occupants, date from which
occupying, whether authorized or unauthorized, details of eviction
notices, outstanding lease / rental due and so on. It shall be
specially stated whether the notices for eviction were served and
the dates by which the quarters were to be vacated by the
unauthorized occupants. This website shall be updated once everyPage 5 of 6
month on the basis of the action taken for evicting the unauthorized
occupants from their illegal occupation of the Company’s quarters.
III. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police of
Bokaro Area for taking appropriate action to assist the Company
Management to free their quarters from unauthorized occupants.
17. Call for hearing on the next date. Decision shall be taken about the
penalty and compensation after the receipt of the affidavit of the CMD of the
Company.
18. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 6 of 6