CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00867
Dated, the 10th December, 2008
Appellant : Shri Aniruddh Kumar Noniyan
Respondents : Central Coalfields Limited
This matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing on
08.12.2008. Appellant was present at the NIC Studio at Dhanbad. Respondents
were present at NIC Studio at Ranchi whereas the Commission conducted the
hearing from the NIC videoconferencing facility at the CIC office at New Delhi.
2. Through his RTI-application dated 03.03.2008, appellant had raised three
queries directed at CPIO, CCL, Ranchi.
3. Out of these, item at Sl.No.3 has not been answered. This query reads as
follows:-
“3. Copy of the order of the Coal India Limited (Kolkata) or from the
competent authority through which Shri Kumar Mahesh Singh
(Mining – Sardar), Sarubeda Colliery (CCL) was reinstated.”
4. Respondents stated that this information has been provided to the
appellant through CPIO’s communication dated 10.11.2008.
5. Appellant countered it by stating that the information provided to him in
response to this item of query was not what he actually wanted to receive.
According to him, what he wanted was the information regarding which senior
officer had authorized issue of the order mentioned in his query at item 3 of his
RTI-application.
6. Appellant’s argument lacks merit. The information which he had solicited
through his RTI-application is not what he has now mentioned during his
submissions at the hearing for the second-appeal. He has been provided the
information by the respondents corresponding exactly to what appellant had
asked in this item of query. He cannot be allowed to now expand the scope of
the query and ask for additional or different information.
7. In view of the above, it is held that shall be no further disclosure
obligation regarding this RTI-application.
Page 1 of 2
8. Appellant also brought up the subject of delayed disclosure of information
by the respondents.
9. Respondents explained that initially on receiving the application for
information from the appellant, in the considered opinion of the respondents, the
information which the appellant had requested related to a third-party, and
accordingly, correspondence was established with the appellant for the
particulars of the third-party so that he could be contacted as per the provisions
of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. Meanwhile, the respondents in another similar
case received an order from the CIC authorizing disclosure of similar
information. Respondents acted immediately thereafter and ensured that the
information was transmitted to the present appellant without consulting the
third-party.
10. In view of these submissions, it is not proposed to initiate penalty
proceedings against the respondents.
11. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
12. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2