CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00337
Dated, the 30th July, 2008.
Appellant : Shri P.K. Saha
Respondents : Coal India Limited
This matter came up for hearing on 22.07.2008 pursuant to Commission’s
hearing notice dated 06.06.2008. Appellant was present in person, while the
respondents were represented by Mr.Naseem Haider, G.M. (W) & PIO and
Mr. P.K.Chatterjee, ED (S&R) & Appellate Authority.
2. Respondents submitted that the appellant had filed an RTI-application
dated 14.11.2007 asking for certain personal information of Mr. Partha Sarathi
Bhattacharyya, Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of the Coal India Ltd
with headquarters at Calcutta. All information, barring a ‘No Objection
Certificate’ (NOC), which according to the appellant, ought to have been
obtained by Coal India Ltd from Shri Bhattacharyya’s previous employers, viz.
the United Bank of India, was provided to the appellant on the orders dated
05.02.2008 of the Appellate Authority. Appellant’s case was that it was
inconceivable that an NOC relating to an employee of CIL, who has now become
its Chairman, should have gone missing from the records. Respondents
submitted that matter is over 20 years old and at this distance of time it is not
possible for them to speculate on how this document ― assuming that it was at
all obtained ― went missing. All that they can inform the appellant is the
current status of the file following its verification, which is that no NOC was
found contained in the records.
3. Commission doesn’t wish to speculate about why appellant is so
determinately pursuing receiving certain personal information regarding the
present Chairman and Managing Director of the Coal India Ltd. Commission,
however, notes that the Appellate Authority has in a forthright way disclosed all
the information which was on the files to the appellant. The one information
relating to the NOC could not be disclosed because, as stated by the respondents,
no such document was available in the records held by the public authority.
This is what they have informed the appellant.
4. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondents to make
another search to locate the NOC. Respondents submitted that they had made a
diligent search for this document and their response to the appellant was based
Page 1 of 2
upon the result of that search. No useful purpose would be served by mounting
another search for such a document.
Decision:
5. In view of the fact that all information, barring an NOC, has been
disclosed to the appellant corresponding to his RTI-queries ― respondents
stating that the NOC was not available ― it is held that information has been
completely disclosed to the appellant corresponding to his queries. If a
document is not available on the records the only information that can be
disclosed is that no such document is available. To draw an inference about
fraud or mischief only on account of the fact that a document requested by an
applicant is not available on the records of a public authority, shall be untenable.
In view of the categorical assertion of the respondents that the NOC requested by
the appellant was not available on the records, the requirement of information
disclosure is fully met.
6. In view of the above, it is directed that there shall be no further disclosure
obligation as regards this appeal.
7. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar
Page 2 of 2