CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
...
F. No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000684
Dated, the 5th January, 2010
Appellant : Shri G.C. Qureshi
Respondents : Western Coalfields Limited
This 2nd-appeal-petition has been filed by Shri G.C. Qureshi(appellant)
against the Western Coalfields Limited (W.C.L.).
2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 16.08.2008, desired to
have information regarding the Annual Property Return of a 3rd-party,
namely Shri N.C. Qureshi, who is appellant’s brother and also an employee of
the public authority. CPIO, through his reply dated 21.08.2008, rejected the
appellant’s request for information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI-Act
treating it a 3rd-party information.
3. On receiving the reply from the CPIO, appellant approached him and
requested verbally that if the 3rd-party consented to the disclosure, the
information be provided to him. CPIO considered the appellant’s verbal
request and accordingly, on 20.09.2008, made a reference to the 3rd-party
for seeking his response to the appellant’s request for information.
Simultaneously, on 1.10.2008, a reference was also made to the holder-of-
the-information viz., the O.S.D.(EE), WCL, Nagpur. In-between, appellant,
took up the matter in 1st-appeal before AA, challenging the order of the
CPIO. AA, in its decision dated 13.10.2008, recorded that Shri N.C. Qureshi
(3rd-party) was transferred from WCL to Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) in
the year 1998 and his personal file was sent to CCL, from where he retired
from service. As such, the requested information was no more held by the
WCL-respondents. He further recorded that during the hearing before him
the 3rd-party orally consented to the disclosure of the information over
telephone which he would confirm in writing in due course. Considering this,
AA decided to disclose the information to appellant for which he directed
the CPIO, WCL to make correspondence with GM(Per), CCL and PIO,CCL.
4. In compliance with the decision of AA, CPIO, WCL, through a
communication dated 14.10.2008, which was followed up by reminders dated
24.11.2008, 12.12.2008 and 31.12.2008, requested the CPIO, CCL, Darbhanga
House, Ranchi to supply the requested information to the appellant. On
02.02.2009, CPIO, WCL transmitted the information to the appellant stating
that “the information sought by you has been inadvertently sent to Shri N.C.
Page 1 of 2
Qureshi, Nagpur by the General Manager (Geology)/PIO,CCL, Ranchi, vide
his letter No. DG/CCL/PIO/09/3672 dated 16.01.2009. Sri N.C. Qureshi in
turn handed-over the information to the undersigned on 28.01.2009.As such,
we are supplying the information sent by Sri R.K. Choudhary, General
Manager (Geology)/PIO, CCL, Ranchi.”
5. Being dissatisfied with the information provided to him, appellant filed
nd
2 -appeal before the State Information Commission, Maharashtra, who
advised him that he should file it before the Central Information Commission
(CIC). Accordingly, appellant filed his 2nd-appeal before CIC on 10.08.2009.
6. Matter initially came up for hearing on 05.11.2009 and was directed to
be adjourned as the videoconference (VC) facility at NIC, Nagpur did not
work. The appellant was present at NIC VC facility at Betul. Matter was
rescheduled and was heard on 21.12.2009. Appellant was present at NIC VC
facility at Betul. Respondents were present at NIC VC facility at Nagpur.
Commission conducted the hearing from its court-room at New Delhi.
Decision:
7. Upon hearing both the parties and after examining the records, it is
noticed that the information has been already disclosed to appellant after
CPIO consulted the 3rd-party to whom it related.
8. Appellant claims that respondents obstructed disclosure of information
to him, which allegation is not borne out by the facts.
9. Appeal closed.
(A.N. TIWARI)
Information Commissioner
Page 2 of 2