CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00765
Dated, the 10th December, 2008
Appellant : Shri A.G. Mahanti
Respondents : Bharat Coking Coal Limited
This matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing on
08.12.2008. Appellant and respondents both were present at NIC Studio at
Dhanbad, whereas the Commission conducted the hearing from the NIC
videoconferencing facility at the CIC office at New Delhi.
2. Through his RTI-application dated 21.02.2008, appellant had raised four
queries directed at PIO & Area Pers. Manager, Block-II Area, BCCL, Dhanbad.
3. Replies of the CPIO were provided to the appellant on 14.03.2008 and the
Appellate Authority passed his order on 06.05.2008.
4. Presently, appellant’s submission is that information supplied against the
item at Sl.No.1 of his query was not congruent with his request. CPIO failed to
provide the information corresponding to appellant’s query at Sl.No.3 and
withheld information corresponding to query at Sl.No.4. These queries / requests
are listed as follows:-
“1. Please provide the seniority list of Asst. Foreman (Electrical) T/S
Grade ‘C’ Electrical / Engineering Department.
3. Please provide the marks obtained by each candidate in the DPC
held in the year 2007 for the promotion of Asst. Foremen
(Electrical) Grade ‘C’ to the post of Foreman (Electrical) Grade
‘B’.
4. Kindly give detailed reasons for depriving me of the promotion to
the grade Foreman (Electrical) Grade ‘B’ in spite of clear vacancy
and my fulfilling all the requirements for the promotion.”
5. In response to appellant’s submission regarding disconnect between his
query and the answer provided to him for item at Sl.No.1 of appellant’s
RTI-application, respondents stated that appellant was not right in stating that the
information provided to him was not the seniority list of Electrical and
Mechanical Cadre officers. What has been provided to him is actually the
Electrical and Mechanical Cadre Seniority List.
Page 1 of 2
6. In view of this clarification, there should be no further disclosure
obligation in regard to this query.
7. In regard to query no.3, Commission sees no reason why the requested
information should not be provided to the appellant. Respondents are directed to
disclose this information after applying provisions of Section 10(1) of the RTI
Act in consonance with Commission’s decision in B.L. Sinha Vs. Company
Affairs; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00256; Date of Decision: 03.05.2007.
8. CPIO is directed that this item of information (item 3) shall be disclosed
to the appellant within one week of the receipt of this order.
9. Item 4 does not merit a response as it is not a request for information
within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
10. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
11. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2