CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01567
Dated, the 08th May, 2009.
Appellant : Shri K. Raman
Respondents : Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited
This matter was heard through videoconferencing on 27.04.2009.
Appellant and Respondents were present at NIC Studio at Cuddalore.
Commission conducted the hearing from the videoconferencing facility
at its New Delhi Office.
2. Through his RTI-application dated 04.09.2008, appellant had
asked for “information as to why I was not reinstated as advised by the
Conciliation Officer and also the reasons for the delay in my
reinstatement. I may also be communicated the decision taken in the
matter and the remarks offered by the concerned authorities in the
above mentioned letters and copy of the related papers”. Appellant,
thereafter, proceeded to enclose copies of certain letters on the basis
of which he expected respondents to provide him information.
3. CPIO’s reply dated 09.10.2008 and the Appellate Authority’s
decision dated 18.11.2008 stated that the first part of the appellant’s
query was not liable to be replied to by the respondents as it was
“interrogatory in nature”. In regard to the second part of appellant’s
query, CPIO transmitted to him a letter sent by the public authority to
the conciliation officer, which according to him, comprised the decision
taken in the appellant’s matter.
4. It is seen from the second-appeal petition of the appellant that
his intention in filing this RTI-application is to engage the public
authority in a debate regarding the action taken by them about, what
he believes to be, not in order for there is reinstatement following his
removal from service on the orders of the competent authority. RTI Act
provides no scope for such dialogue between an applicant and the
respondent. There shall be no disclosure obligation in regard to this
item of query.
5. As regards the second part of the query, CPIO has transmitted to
the appellant a copy of the letter sent to the Conciliation Officer, which
AT-08052009-05.doc
Page 1 of 2
contains all the reasons relating to his so-called reinstatement. This
fully satisfies the requirement of disclosure in regard to this query.
6. It is directed that there shall be no further disclosure obligation
cast on the respondents in regard to this part of the query.
7. It is seen that this applicant has been attempting to use the RTI
Act in order to settle his imaginary grievances about non-compliance of
Tribunal Orders and conciliation proceedings. These fora to which he
has been allowed to statutory access are fully equipped to take action
for enforcement of their decision or their recommendations. Appellant
shall not be authorized to use the RTI Act to force public authority to
state their position regarding what they have done in regard to
implementing the orders of Tribunals and recommendations of
conciliation officials. Appellant should better approach those fora for
relief which he may be seeking. He shall, however, be allowed to gain
access to the information which respondents may hold such as
documents, files, records, memos, etc. within the meaning of Section
2(f) in respect of even explanatory queries which he may wish to make.
But his right will extend not beyond receiving those documents and
surely not to seeking from the respondents their opinions, advice or
explanations about appellant’s assumptions.
8. Appeal is directed to be closed.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-08052009-05.doc
Page 2 of 2