dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Central Information Commission *****
INTERIM ORDER in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000061
Appellant : Shri Shanichar Mehto
Respondents : Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Hearing held on 17.3.2010
The interim order of the Commission is as follows:
“This matter was heard through videoconferencing (VC) on 17.03.2010. Appellant was present
in person at NIC VC facility at Dhanbad, while the respondents ― represented by Shri B. Singh, Area
Personnel Manager & PIO ― were present at the same venue. Commission conducted the hearing from
its New Delhi office.
2. Appellant’s claim is that he had not been provided the information requested through his RTI-
application dated 10.07.2009. This application was regarding a certain acquisition of the appellant’s
land two decades ago in Village Daulatdeeh, Plot No.46. Appellant was also paid compensation for
that land-acquisition, but, as stated by him, he was not provided a site for building a house, as part of
the land-acquisition proceeding and as promised by the BCCL management. Appellant also claims that
full compensation was not provided to him. He made certain representations in the years 2008 and
2009 to the Managing Director of the public authority, but no reply came his way.
3. He, therefore, wants to know as to what action was taken and by which officer of the public
authority relating to his representations dated 08.12.2008 and 21.02.2009.
4. On hearing the parties, it was considered necessary that respondents were given a chance to
clearly state whether there is documentary evidence that the compensation for the acquisition of the
appellant’s property was paid to him and the details and the proof thereof. Respondents are also to
make their position clear regarding the appellant’s claim that he was to have been given an alternate site
which was never provided to him. They should also provide a reply to the appellant to each point made
by him in his RTI-application.
5. Respondents are directed to submit all the documentation as above to the Commission within
6. Matter shall be further heard on the next date of hearing. Schedule hearing.
7. Appellant has also alleged that a delay of eight months has occurred in the respondents
providing him the requested information to the application dated 10.07.2009. Notices may issue to all
holders-of-information as well as the CPIO as to why proceedings under Section 18 not be drawn up
against them. Returnable in two weeks.
8. Call for further hearing.”
(A. N. Tiwari)