CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000293
Dated, the 17th July, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Hariom Pandey
Respondents : Northern Coalfields Limited
This matter was heard through videoconferencing on 06.07.2009
pursuant to Commission’s notice dated 03.06.2009. Appellant was
present at NIC Studio, Sonbhadra, while the respondent-Appellate
Authority was present at NIC Studio, Sidhi. Commission conducted the
hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 02.01.2009,
requested the CPIO to allow him inspection of documents relating to
correspondence with the dependents of late Shri Satya Dev Pandey,
ex-Foreman, Beena, who passed away on 09.02.2003.
3. Appellant was informed by the CPIO, Shri R.R. Singh, Sr.Mining
Engineer, NCL, Singrauli, through a communication dated 05.01.2009
that appellant’s request was forwarded to the Department concerned
and that desired information would be supplied to him on receipt of the
same from that Department.
4. On 04.02.2009, CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on the
basis of information received from the Deputy CPM (MP/Recruitment),
Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli that no correspondence was
established with the dependents of late Shri Satya Dev Pandey.
5. In the first-appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld the
communication which was provided to the appellant by the CPIO.
6. Now in his second-appeal, appellant has made reference to
correspondence which respondents have had on 18.06.2003, 28.06.2003
and 29.08.2003 with him following the death of appellant’s father late
Shri Satya Dev Pandey.
7. While the appellant claims that respondents had furnished to him
wrong and misleading information, it is the Appellate Authority’s plea
that the appellant’s RTI-application made no mention about where his
AT-17072009-04.doc
Page 1 of 3
late father, Shir Satya Dev Pandey worked. Due to non-availability of
this important information, the CPIO and the Appellate Authority sought
this information from the office where, according to their belief, it
might have been held. But the reply they received from that office was
that no such information was held by them.
8. Respondents claimed that only after appellant filed his second-
appeal and made references to certain correspondences, which were
entered into between the dependents of late Shri Satya Dev Pandey and
the office of the public authority, did the Appellate Authority and the
CPIO came to know that late Shri Satya Dev Pandey was a Foreman at
their Beena Project. It was again only after the second-appeal filed by
the appellant, that respondents ⎯ Appellate Authority and CPIO ⎯
became aware that this information was likely to be held by the Beena
Project of the public authority. Accordingly, the matter was referred to
Deputy CPM (Recruitment), Beena on 05.01.2009 by the CPIO and on
receiving his reply on 28.01.2009, CPIO furnished the requisite
information to the appellant on 04.02.2009.
9. It is, therefore, the submission of the respondents that they never
provided wrong or misleading information to the appellant. They were
in fact misled by the failure of the appellant to properly inform CPIO
about the last place of work of his late father.
10. In view what has been submitted by both sides, I do not think any
purpose would be served by prolonging this matter further about fixing
responsibility. I find merit in the respondents’ submission that the
appellant himself had omitted to properly mention where his late father
worked which confused them about where the requested information
might have been held. RTI Act expects not only that respondents
should provide held information to the applicants but also that the
applicants would exercise due diligence in formulating their queries for
precise and verifiable information. That has not happened in this
particular case.
11. However, considering the fact that appellant’s main request was
for inspection of the correspondence between the dependents of late
Shri Satya Dev Pandey and the public authority ⎯ which is now known
to be the Beena Project held by Deputy CPM (MP/Recruitment) ⎯ it is
directed that the respondents allow the appellant to inspect all these
documents on a day and time which may be intimated to him within the
next three weeks of the receipt of this order. Appellant shall be
AT-17072009-04.doc
Page 2 of 3
allowed to take copies of the inspected documents on payment of the
requisite fee.
12. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
13. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-17072009-04.doc
Page 3 of 3