Shri Balram Prasad vs Coal India Limited on 18 February, 2009

0
92
Central Information Commission
Shri Balram Prasad vs Coal India Limited on 18 February, 2009
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              .....

F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01384
Dated, the 18th February, 2009

Appellant : Shri Balram Prasad

Respondents : Coal India Limited

This second-appeal came up for hearing through videoconferencing on
09.02.2009. Appellant was present at the NIC Studio at Dhanbad whereas the
respondents were present at the NIC Studio at Kolkata. Commission conducted
the hearing from the NIC facility at the CIC office at New Delhi.

2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 24.06.2008, wanted
information in respect of three queries. These are as follows:-

“1. What was exact number of sanctioned vacancies of Private
Secretaries in E-2 grade during the period “Jan. 1998 to Jan. 1999” in
Coal India Ltd., as a whole i.e. CIL & its Subsidiary Companies. Kindly
furnish the breakup figures for CIL and Subsidiary company wise?

2. During the disposal of the SLPs No.13953/2006 & 9831/2006 in
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the counsel on behalf of CIL
indicated that there were 40 (Forty) vacancies available. Kindly furnish a
copy of the notification duly authenticated?

3. After disposal of the SLPs from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, is there any legal advice / opinion obtained from the Counsel /
Panel Advocate of CIL to conduct a fresh test, if so, kindly furnish a copy
of the opinion / advice with details?”

3. He received a reply from the CPIO dated 09.07.2008 in respect of query
no.3. Subsequently, on 23.07.2008, CPIO informed appellant that he needed to
pay further-fee / cost of Rs.3,096/- if he wished to access the information as
regards item 1 of the query. As regards query no.2, appellant was informed that
he could deposit Rs.4/- for 2 pages of information to enable the CPIO to transmit
the information to him. Referring to query no.3, CPIO stated that this was
beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and hence could not be disclosed
to the appellant.

AT-18022009-01.doc
Page 1 of 3

4. The Appellate Authority, in his order dated 03.09.2008, noted that as
regards query no.3, CPIO had provided to the appellant two different types of
replies; one vide his letter dated 09.07.2008 and another through his letter dated
23.07.2008. Appellate Authority noted that in this two replies, CPIO had taken
different positions regarding why the information could not be disclosed. While
for the first reply, he cited exemption under Section 8(1)(j), for the second reply,
he used the scope of Section 2(f) to decline to disclose information. Appellate
Authority, however, declined to disclose the information in item no.3 on grounds
that as advised by the public authority’s Legal Department it was barred from
disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

5. He directed CPIO to furnish information pertaining to item no.2 within
seven days of the appellate order, while for item no.1 he upheld the CPIO’s
demand that the appellant pay Rs.3,096/- as cost before the information could be
provided to him.

6. Appellant stated that in regard to item no.2, he paid the fee on 29.07.2008
but no information was provided to him. In regard to item no.1, he challenged
the order of the CPIO charging to him cost for providing information.

7. Item no.3 is related to the advice received the Coal India Limited from its
Advocate. Appellant demands to access this information as well.

8. During the hearing, CPIO stated that cost was demanded for information
at item no.1 because the holder-of-the-information mentioned to the CPIO that
the information was of the year 1998 and 99 and could not be traced without
deployment of extra hands which should be compensated by the appellant under
Section 7(3) of the RTI Act. Appellant was asked to pay the amount which he
has not yet remitted.

9. It is found that what he seeks to receive by way of information in item 1
of his query is only the number of vacancies of Private Secretaries in Grade E-2
during the period January 1998 to January 1999 ⎯ a period of one year. I see no
reason why this information could not be provided to the appellant without
payment of further-fee / cost.

10. It is accordingly directed that this information shall be transmitted to the
appellant within three weeks of the receipt of this order. No fee shall be charged
to the appellant because there has now been considerable delay in providing the
information to him.

11. As regards item no.2, it would appear that there has been some delay at
the level of the CPIO in transmitting the information, which was eventually
transmitted on 29.01.2009 after the appellant remitted the requisite fee as
Page 2 of 3
demanded by the CPIO on 29.07.2008. It was the submission of the CPIO that
this delay was entirely inadvertent because the matter remained in a file, which
was not put up to him.

12. I have noted that the delayed disclosure in this matter was not on account
of any mala-fide or deliberate action designed to deprive the appellant of the
requested information, but mostly due to inadvertence and certain systemic
failures in the office of the CPIO. As such, I do not propose to initiate penalty
proceedings in this matter which, according to me, is covered by the reasonable
cause provision of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

13. As regards information at Sl.No.3, there have been certain reasons
advanced by the respondents not to disclose this information. I notice that this
information, being the advice received by the CIL from its advocate, is clearly
barred by Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. As such, there shall be no disclosure
obligation as regards this item.

14. It is accordingly directed that this information shall not be disclosed to the
appellant.

15. Appeal is disposed of with these directions.

16. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.

( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Page 3 of 3

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *