CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01561 dated 27.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Arun Tiwari
Respondent - Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Decision Announced 31`.7.'09
Facts
:
By an application of 22.6.07 addressed to Shri K. L. Ahuja, CPIO, CVC,
Shri Arun Tiwari of Ranchi, Jharkhand sought the following information:
“1. Photocopy of the report by the CVO in regard to Complaint
No. 402/06/6.
2. Photocopy of the official notes made by the dealing
personnel and onward notices thereon the authorities
concerned on the report of the CVO received on 1.2.07 in
above complaint.
3. Photocopy of the final order/ finding of the Commission
advisory closure of the case vide order dated 21.2.07.”
To this he received a response on 17.8.07 with the following information
provided free of charge, as it was overdue:
“A copy each of the following documents is enclosed:-
(i) The Ministry of Coal’s UO No. 13027/4/2006-vig dated
23.11.2006 (Seven pages);
(ii) Commission’s OM No. 006/COL/025-49057 dated 21.2.2007
(one page) and
(iii) A copy of each of the Commission’s notes dated 4/7.12.2006
and dated 6/15.2.2007 (two pages).
The above documents are provided free of charge in terms of Sec.
7(6) of the RTI Act.”
However, on the basis of an objection, as third party, by the CCL, a
copy of the CCL’s letter No. CCL/Vig/06-07/3499 dated 25.1.2007
is denied under Section 8 (1) (d) read with Section 11 of the RTI
Act.”
1
Shri Tiwari then moved an appeal on 20.9.2007 before Shri V. Kannan,
Addl. Secretary, CVC on the following grounds:
“10. That the opposite party has failed to appreciate that
information/ document sought for the appellant relates to the
complain alleging serious financial irregularities causing
huge loss to the CCL & BCCL which are public sector
company. Hence it is in public interest that enquiry report
submitted by the CVO in this regard on the complaint of the
appellant should be disclosed.
11. That the Opposite Party has also failed to appreciate that
public sector organizations like CCL & BCCL should function
in a transparent manner in public interest and if the
documents sought for is denied, particularly in the matter of
complaint alleging financial loss to the company due to
irregularities committed by the officers of the company,
public interest at large will suffer.”
Upon this Appellate Authority Shri V. Kannan in his order of 12.10.2007
passed the following order:
“I uphold the decision of the CPIO, denying you part information u/s
8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.”
The appeal was heard by video conference on 1.6.09. The
following were present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Ranchi, Jharkhand
Shri Arun Tiwari
Shri P. N. Prasad
Respondents at CIC, New Delhi
Ms. Jyoti Mehta, Director, CVC
Ms. Jyoti Mehta, Director, CVC submitted that the CCL was a third party in
this matter and the report of CCL was submitted to CIL, which was the party that
submitted this report to the CVC. Because the CCL objected to disclosure of the
information after reference to it by the CPIO, CVC u/s 11, the information has
been denied to appellant Shri Arun Tiwari. We, therefore, examined the file. We
find there is a letter of CVO, CCL of 26.7.07 at page No. 37/38-C addressed to
CVO, CIL in File No. 006/COL/025 entitled “Complaint against Shri R.P. Ritolia,
CMD, an Officer of CCL” in which this matter is examined. Although there is a
2
reference to CCL’s policy of E-auction and facts related to price of coal, the
details of that policy are not discussed.
Ms. Jyoti Mehta also explained the reasons why the transfer of this case
u/s 6(3)(1) has taken more than five days the permissible period mandated under
sub sec. (1) of Sec. 6(3). This was because this letter was transferred to CIL and
Ministry of Coal on 7.7.07 and a reply from CCL was received on 26.7.07 and
from the Ministry on 9.8.07. Hence the formal transfer took place only on
17.8.07. This issue has also not been pressed by appellant.
In an interim decision we held that the delay in transferring the application
stands explained. However, on the question of the disclosure of the letter of
CVO, CCL to CIL, there is clearly involvement of a third party which has objected
to disclosure of the contents of this letter, as requested by appellant Shri Arun
Tiwari in his application of 22.6.07. Before we can take a decision in the matter,
therefore, it would be necessary to hear the third party. CVO, CCL was ,
therefore, directed to appear before us together with appellant Shri Arun Tiwari
through video conference on 1.7.2009 at 4.30 P.M. CPIO, CVC having submitted
her arguments was told that she need not appear again.
Accordingly, the matter was heard once more on 22.7.09 through video
conference Following on the Interim Decision at page 3-N, the following
appeared before us at NIC Studio, Ranchi on 22.7.2009 :
Appellant Shri Arun Tiwari
Shri B. N. Prasad
Respondents
Shri Alok Singh, CVO, CCL
Shri Alok Singh, CVO, CCL submitted that on all three points regarding
which information was sought by appellant Shri Arun Tiwari in his application of
22.6.07, he had been provided the information. However, it was by an error in
the response of CPIO, CVC to appellant Shri Arun Tiwari dated 17.8.07 that he
has informed appellant that “a copy of the CCL’s letter No. CCL/Vig/06-07/3499
3
dated 25.1.2007 is denied under Section 8 (1) (d) read with Section 11 of the RTI
Act.” This letter, Shri Alok Singh averred, was not a part of information sought in
the application for information submitted by Shri Arun Tiwari. This constituted
only an internal communication, the disclosure of which had been objected to by
the CCL.
Shri Arun Tiwari submitted, however, that since this letter discussed the
complaint regarding which information had been sought by him, it constitutes a
part of the official noting with which the report of the CVO was concerned.
It was confirmed by CVO, CCL that this letter is held by the Ministry of
Coal. The CPIO, Ministry of Coal was, therefore, directed to present the file
containing this letter for our inspection on 31.7.09 at 12.30 p.m. to enable us to
decide whether in fact this letter can be deemed to be part of the information
asked for by Shri Arun Tiwari in his application of 22.6.07.
CPIO Shri P.S.S. Reddy, Director, Ministry of Coal then appeared before
us on 31.7.2009 and presented a copy of the impugned letter of 25.1.07.
Reading this letter substantiates the arguments of Shri Alok Singh, CVO CCL
that this letter has been cited by error by CPIO CVC by refusing information on
the grounds that this might disclose commercial interests, since it deals with the
price of coals. Infact the letter has no such component, and only examines the
disposal of the application for information. Shri Reddy himself was of the view
that this letter is not a confidential document and could be disclosed. He
submitted a certified copy to this Commission.
DECISION NOTICE
In view of the above, it is clear that the information sought by appellant
Shri Arun Tiwari has in fact been provided. However, to assuage his doubts
regarding part of the information constituting file noting having been withheld a
4
copy of the letter No. CCL/Vig/06-07/3499 dated 25.1.007 is attached together
with this Decision for his information.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
31.7.2009
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
31.7.2009
5