CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000004
Dated, the 23rd February, 2010.
Appellant : Shri Ram Nehor Gautam
Respondents : South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL)
This matter was heard through videoconferencing (VC) on
18.02.2010 in the presence of both parties. Appellant was present at
NIC VC facility at Dhanbad, while the respondents ⎯ represented by the
CPIO, Shri S.K. Mitra ⎯ were present at NIC VC facility at Bilaspur.
Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. The matter in this second-appeal is related to appellant’s
RTI-application dated 20.07.2009, which was replied to by the CPIO on
24.08.2009 and again on 08.09.2009. His first-appeals dated
24.08.2009, 02.09.2009 and 23.09.2009 were decided by the Appellate
Authority, Shri D. Jha, General Manager (SECL) on 08.09.2009,
19.09.2009 and 19.10.2009 respectively.
3. A copy of appellant’s RTI-application is enclosed to this order.
Query at Sl.No.1:
4. During hearing, respondents stated that as regards appellant’s
query at Sl.No.1 of his RTI-application, all information in the control of
the public authority was provided to him in the light of the queries.
There was nothing more to be given.
5. Appellant has claimed that no information was provided to him
except copies of the note-sheets.
Decision:
6. As it is not clear from the versions of the appellant and the
respondent as to what actually was sought by the appellant and what
information was contained in the files to which he had made a
reference, it is considered best that appellant be allowed inspection of
the above records/files in order to satisfy himself that proper
information was disclosed to him. It is accordingly directed that on a
AT-23022010-03.doc
Page 1 of 3
day and time to be intimated to the appellant within three weeks of the
receipt of this order, he shall be allowed to inspect the records and
files relating to this query. He shall also be allowed to take copies of
the documents, following inspection, on payment of the requisite fees.
Query at Sl.No.2:
7. This query relates to appellant’s Annual EERs for the years 2006-
2007; 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.
Decision:
8. In the light of Commission’s decision in P.K. Sarin Vs. Directorate
General of Works (CPWD); Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00422; Date of
Decision: 19.02.2009, this information is needed to be disclosed.
Respondents are directed to do so within two weeks of the receipt of
this order.
Query at Sl.No.3:
9. In regard to this query, respondents’ explanation was that all the
details appellant had requested was contained in the LPC, which was
issued to him. No other information is in existence.
Decision:
10. In view of the explanation given by the respondents, there shall
be no obligation to disclose anything more.
Queries at Sl.Nos.4 and 6:
11. According to the respondents, all this information has already
been brought into the public domain by them and is available on their
website, to which appellant was referred by the CPIO. Now that the
appellant has claimed that he could not locate the above-mentioned
information on the website, respondents agreed that they would
provide it to him in hardcopy after receiving from him requisite fee.
Decision:
12. Now that the respondents are agreeable to provide this
information to the appellant, they may do so within 2 weeks of the
receipt of this order.
AT-23022010-03.doc
Page 2 of 3
Query at Sl.No.5:
13. Respondents explained that this information is contained in the
LPC, which was mentioned in respect of the query at Sl.No.3 above.
They had no information regarding the competent authority empowered
to take any decision in the matter. As stated by the respondents, these
decisions were not taken at any specific point in time, but were in the
usual course of business under the existing Rules.
Decision:
14. In view of the respondents’ explanation, there shall be no further
obligation to disclose this information.
Queries at Sl.Nos.7 to 12:
15. Respondents submitted that through these items of queries
appellant had solicited information regarding action taken on certain
applications he had been periodically making to the public authority.
On the basis of the copies of these letters, which he presented to the
Appellate Authority, it was not possible to locate any information as no
reference of the receipt of those documents by the public authority or
an acknowledgement was made available by the appellant. Merely on
the basis of the dates of his letter, it was not possible to identify any
information.
16. Since respondents are unable to identify any information on the
basis of the reference appellant has made available to them, it is
possible that no such information exists. Appellant believes that there
ought to have been some action on those letters, but according to the
respondents, there’s no evidence of any such action by them at any
stage.
Decision:
17. In view of what the respondents have stated, no responsibility for
disclosure of information can be cast on them.
18. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
19. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-23022010-03.doc
Page 3 of 3