Central Information Commission
Vipin Punjabi vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. on 23 July, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151416-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151417-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151436-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151419-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151421-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151437-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151438-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151422-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151439-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151440-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151424-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151442-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151425-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151427-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151446-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151429-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151448-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151430-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151450-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151451-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151432-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151453-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151433-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151454-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151434-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151428-BJ
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151420-BJ
Mr. Vipin Punjabi
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
Page 1 of 30
CPIO,
Raigarh Area
South Eastern Coalfields Limited
O/o. The Public Information Officer
SECL, Raigarh Area, Behind Collectorate
Chhote Atarmuda, Post Box No.- 27
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh- 496001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.07.2020
Date of Decision : 23.07.2020
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151416-BJ Date of RTI application 08.01.2018 CPIO's response 23.03.2018/ 12.06.2018 Date of the First Appeal 03.04.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018 FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the General Manager, Sales and Marketing, SECL Bilaspur on the communication dated 26.06.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation. The CPIO, vide letter dated 23.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
Page 2 of 30
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151417-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 23.03.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 03.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the Director (Technical (Operation), SECL Bilaspur on the communication dated 08.07.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation. The CPIO, vide letter dated 23.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151436-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 23.03.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 03.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the Director Technical Operations, South Eastern Coalfields Limited on the communication dated 13.06.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 23.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to Page 3 of 30 provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151419-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the Sub-Area Manager, Jampali on the communication dated 22.06.2015 sent in reference to the compliance of the communication dated 18.05.2015 sent by M/s Jindal Power Limited; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 20.01.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 5 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151421-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 09.03.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the General Manager, Sales and Marketing, South Eastern Coalfields Limited on the communication dated 18.01.2016 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
Page 4 of 30The CPIO, vide letter dated 09.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 6 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151437-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 23.03.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 03.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the Chairman cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited on the communication dated 22.06.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 23.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 7 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151438-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
Page 5 of 30
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the Area Sales Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited on the communication dated 08.07.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 20.01.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 8 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151422-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 09.03.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by Chairman cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited on the communication dated 08.07.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 09.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
Page 6 of 30
RTI - 9 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151439-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the GM, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh on the communication dated 08.07.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 20.01.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 10 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151440-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 09.03.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the Director (Technical) (Operations), South Eastern Coalfields Limited on the communication dated 26.06.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 09.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order Page 7 of 30 dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 11 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151424-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 09.03.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the Director (Technical) (Operations), South Eastern Coalfields Limited on the communication dated 22.06.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 09.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 12 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151442-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
Page 8 of 30
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the Area Sales Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited on the communication dated 22.06.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 20.01.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 13 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151425-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 09.03.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the Chairman cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited on the communication dated 15.06.2015 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 09.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
Page 9 of 30
RTI - 14 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151427-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the action taken/ investigation done by the Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited on the communication dated 18.01.2016 sent by the Jindal Power Limited to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh; action taken against the delinquent officials consequent to the investigation.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 09.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 instructed the Regional Sales Manager, Raigarh to intimate the CPIO if the information sought was held with them or not and if the information sought was available then to provide the same to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 15 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151446-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 87 dated 15 June, 2015 written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by the General Manager, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be Page 10 of 30 furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department, wherein it was informed that no information was available with Department.
RTI - 16 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151429-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 87 dated 15 June, 2015 written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by Sub Area Manager, Jampali etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department wherein it was informed that no information was available with Department.
RTI - 17 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151448-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
Page 11 of 30
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 85 dated 13 June, 2015 written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by Area Sales Manager, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department, wherein it was informed that no information was available with Department.
RTI - 18 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151430-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 91 dated 26 June, 2015 (attached reference letter indicates 25th June, 2015) written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by the Sub Area Manager, Jampali etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department, wherein it was informed that no information was available with Department.
Page 12 of 30
RTI - 19 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151450-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 91 dated 26 June, 2015 (attached reference letter indicates 25th June, 2015) written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by the General Manager, SECL, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department, wherein it was informed that no information was available with Department.
RTI - 20 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151451-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 91 dated 26 June, 2015 (attached reference letter indicates 25th June, 2015) written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by the Respondent Public Authority, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with Page 13 of 30 him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department, wherein it was informed that no information was available with Department.
RTI - 21 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151432-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 85 dated 13 June, 2015 written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by General Manager, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department, wherein it was informed that no information was available with Department.
RTI - 22 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151453-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 23.03.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 03.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
Page 14 of 30
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 87 dated 15 June, 2015 written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by the Director Technical (Operation), etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.03.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department, wherein it was informed that their office had no information in the matter.
RTI - 23 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151433-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 87 dated 15 June, 2015 written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by the Area Sales Manager, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department.
Page 15 of 30
RTI - 24 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151454-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 23.03.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 03.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 91 dated 26 June, 2015 (reference letter attached indicates 25th June, 2015) written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.03.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department, wherein it was informed that their office had no information in the matter.
RTI - 25 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151434-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 85 dated 13 June, 2015 written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by the Area Sales Manager, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be Page 16 of 30 furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department.
RTI - 26 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151428-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL:002 dated 18th January, 2016 written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by the Respondent Public Authority, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department.
RTI - 27 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151420-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.01.2018
CPIO's response 20.01.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to letter no. AKA:JPL:2400MW: SECL: 90 dated 22 June, 2015 written by Jindal Power Limited regarding DO No. 052015/4909/01863/166270 issued on 18th May, 2015, the letters, documents, reports, etc., related to the enquiry conducted and action taken thereon by GM, SECL etc. Page 17 of 30 The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.01.2018, stated that the information sought did not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. If the information sought is available, then the same should be furnished to the CPIO for providing it to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vipin Punjabi along with Mr. Natwar Rateriya through VC; Respondent: Mr. Onkar Singh, CPIO, Mr. B. V. B. Reddy, First Appellate Authority and Mr. Yashwant Kumar Soni, Assistant Manager (Mining) through VC;
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI applications and stated that the issue involved in 27 out of 29 similar matters listed for hearing today essentially pertained to unsatisfactory and incorrect response by the CPIO who had initially replied that the queries raised by him did not fall within the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, no satisfactory information was provided by the CPIO despite the order of the FAA who had directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to inform the CPIO whether the information sought was available with him or not within 15 days. The Appellant essentially contested that instead of stating that the information sought was not available, the Respondent ought to have provided him a clear and cogent reply as to whether any action was taken on the representations filed by M/s Jindal Power Ltd. or not. In support of his contention, the Appellant referred to the decision of the Commission in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136437 dated 05.11.2019 and stated that in the said matter, the Commission while directing the CPIO, SECL Bilaspur to provide information within 04 weeks observed that the basis of transferring the application u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 ought to have been explained in the reply by the CPIO.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that all the information held and available in their record was provided to the Appellant. Explaining the background/ genesis of the matter, the Respondent referred to their written submission dated 20.07.2020 and stated that essentially the issue pertained to the representations made by M/s Jindal Power Ltd regarding non- forfeiture of the EMD for unlifted/ lapsed quantity on JPL A/c. The proposal was forwarded to SECL, HQ for necessary action but the proposal was returned back for further query. Accordingly, the then General Manager, Raigarh Area had constituted a Committee to re-examine the whole case and recommend accordingly. The decision of the Committee was intimated to M/s Jindal Power Ltd vide letter no 2310 dated 05.12.2019 and earlier vide another letter no 696 dated 03.08.2018. While stating that the matter essentially pertained to a dispute between the Public Authority and M.s Jindal Power Ltd., the Respondent stated that no larger public interest warranting disclosure of information was justified by the Appellant. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the issues raised in the instant matters were the similar to the issues contested in the earlier decisions of the Commission in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136429, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136437, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136430, Page 18 of 30 CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136428, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136434, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136433, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136438, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136436, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136431, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136427, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135119, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135120, CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135117 and CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135118 and that all information held and available in their record was provided to the Appellant in compliance with the aforementioned decisions, the details of which were mentioned in their written submission. On being queried if the copy of the written submission sent to the Commission was also forwarded to the Appellant or not, the Respondent replied in the negative but assured to forward the same expeditiously, if so directed by the Commission. While acknowledging the receipt of the reply from the CPIO in compliance with the directions of the Commission, the Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the same since it did not satisfactorily answer his queries resulting in non-
compliance of the Commission's direction.
On being queried by the Commission regarding the larger public interest involved in disclosure of information, no satisfactory response was offered by the Appellant who made a feeble submission that it was a 5 ½ years old matter pertaining to allegation of corruption against the Public Authority. On being further questioned if he had approached the CVO/ CVC/ ED/CBI/ any other judicial forum or higher official in the Public Authority, till date, the Appellant stated that in the intervening period they tried to take up the matter with higher authorities in Respondent Public Authority but no satisfactory action was taken on their grievance resulting in filing the RTI applications. The Commission further queried if the Appellant had challenged the earlier orders pronounced by the Commission before a higher judicial forum to which the Appellant replied in the negative.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 20.07.2020 wherein it was stated that in compliance with the decisions of the Commission in File Nos 136429, 136430, 136431, 136434, 136435, 136436, 136437 and 136438, information was provided by them vide letters dated 653382 dated 09.10.2019 and 653381 dated 09.10.2019 sent through email. Thereafter, the Respondent provided the details of the information provided by them in compliance to the orders of the Commission in 15 earlier matters file numbers as mentioned below:-
1. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136429, one page information was provided vide letter no. 667 dated 10.12.2019;
2. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136437, one page information was provided vide letter no. 171 dated 09.11.2019; Again two pages information was provided vide letter no.
2083 dated 12.12.2019;
3. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136430, one page information was provided vide letter no. 1129 dated 19.05.2015; Again five pages information was provided vide letter no. 2206 dated 26.02.2020;
4. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136437, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2112 dated 02.01.2020;
Page 19 of 305. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136428, one page information was provided vide letter no. 2076 dated 12.12.2019;
6. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136434, one page information was provided vide letter no. 2037 dated 20.11.2019; Again one page information was provided vide letter no. 2087 dated 12.12.2019;
7. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136433, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2084 dated 12.12.2019;
8. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136438, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2081 dated 12.12.2019;
9. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136436, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2113 dated 02.01.2020;
10. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136431, one page information was provided vide letter no. 2035 dated 20.11.2019; Again two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2086 dated 12.12.2019;
11. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136427, three pages information was provided vide letter no. 2102 dated 26.12.2019;
12. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135119, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2082 dated 12.12.2019;
13. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135120, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2085 dated 12.12.2019;
14. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135117, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2074 dated 12.12.2019; Again five pages information was provided vide letter no. 2206 dated 26.02.2020;
15. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135118, one page information was provided vide letter no. 2078 dated 12.12.2019;
The Respondent in the written submission also stated that in addition to the above, in file nos 136434, 136431 and 136437, 02 pages of information was provided vide letter number 2089 dated 14.12.2019. Moreover, in file nos 135119, 135120, 136433, 136438, 136434 and 136431, 04 pages of information was again provided to the Appellant. Furthermore, in File nos 136436 and 136435, 02 pages of information was again provided to the Appellant. In addition, it was stated that the matter pertained to a dispute between M/s SECL and Jindal Power Limited and Page 20 of 30 that all information pertaining to M/s Jindal Power Limited was already provided vide letter numbers 2310 and 696.
Having heard both the parties at length and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset referred to definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
Page 21 of 307. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission further observed that similar issues were heard and adjudicated by the Commission earlier in the following matters:
1. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136431 decided on 24.10.2019 ( similar issues heard today in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151416 and CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151454)
2. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135118 decided on 25.10.2019 (similar issues heard today in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151417)
3. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136438 decided on 24.10.2019 (similar issues heard today in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151436)
4. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135119 decided on 25.10.2019 (similar issues heard today in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151419 and CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151420)
5. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136427 decided on 25.10.2019 (similar issues heard today in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151421)
6. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136429 decided on 24.10.2019 (similar issues heard today in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151422)
7. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136433 decided on 24.10.2019 (similar issues heard today in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151440)
8. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136437 decided on 06.11.2019 (similar issues heard today in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151425)
9. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136436 decided on 06.11.2019 (similar issues heard today in CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151453) On examination, it was learnt that similar issues were also decided by the Commission in separate cases, in the following matters on the date mentioned against each:-
10. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136428 decided on 25.10.2019
11. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136430 decided on 24.10.2019
12. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136434 decided on 24.10.2019 Page 22 of 30
13. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136435 decided on 06.11.2019
14. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135117 decided on 25.10.2019
15. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135120 decided on 25.10.2019 As regards the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with regard to the aforementioned decisions and its non-compliance, the Commission observed that re-visiting the said orders would amount to reviewing the earlier decision of the Commission which was not envisaged within the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of DDA vs. CIC and Anr WP (C) 12714/2009 Decided On: 21.05.2010 could be cited wherein it had been held as under:
"35. Yet another instance of the complete transgression of the statutory powers is to be found in Regulation 23. The said regulation, inter alia, provides that an appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, notwithstanding that the decision or order of the Commission is final, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request. It further seeks to empower the Chief Information Commissioner, to consider and decide such a request as he thinks fit. Neither the RTI Act nor the rules framed thereunder grant the power of review to the Central Information Commission or the Chief Information Commissioner. Once the statute does not provide for the power of review, the Chief Information Commissioner cannot, without any authority of law, assume the power of review or even of a special leave to appeal.
Clearly, the said regulation is beyond the contemplation of the Act. Such a regulation is ultra vires the provisions of the Act"
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India and Another W.P.(C) 5086/2010( date of decision: November 18, 2011 had also held as under:
"It is well settled that unless the power of review is vested statutorily, the Court/ authority has no inherent power of review. See Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji,(1971)3SCC844.
Regulation 23 of The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007, as amended vide notification No.CIC/Legal/2007/006 dated 20.10.2008 further exemplifies the position. Prior to this amendment, the aforesaid Regulation 23 read as follows:-
(1) A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final. (2) An appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, however, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request.
(3) The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request, may consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit.(emphasis supplied) Page 23 of 30 After the said aforesaid amendment carried out in the year 2008, Regulation 23 of the aforesaid Regulations now read as follows:-
A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final. It is, therefore, even more clear that by amendment, the legislature has specifically withdrawn the power of review which earlier vested in the CIC."
A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Aseem Takyar vs. CIC and Anr, W.P.(C) 6699/2013 dated 11.04.2017.
Moreover, with regard to the information sought, the Commission observed that the same pertained to correspondence between M/s Jindal Power Ltd and the Respondent Public Authority and action taken on the same. The Appellant could neither justify his locus standi in the subject matter nor could he explain the larger public interest warranting disclosure of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014, wherein it was held as under:
14. "....Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Page 24 of 30 Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
Moreover, on being queried by the Commission regarding any complaint/ representation made by the Appellant before the CVO/ CVC/ ED/CBI/ any other judicial forum or higher official in the Public Authority, till date no satisfactory response was offered by the Appellant to substantiate his claims regarding corruption/ irregularities within the Public Authority. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018 wherein it was held as under:
"30. What concludes therefore from the gamut of discussions herein above is that in a given case information pertaining to assets and liabilities can be disclosed with the rider that there must be larger public interest involved justifying such disclosure. As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority. This situation indeed appears to be a fishing expedition embarked upon by the Petitioner without any bona fide public interest. In these circumstances, it obtains that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
The Commission also observed that filing such repeated RTI applications by a petitioner with twisted or similar queries is held misuse of RTI Act in repeated court-verdicts like of Delhi High Court mentioned hereunder:
1. Verdict dated 19.01.2016 (WPC 406/2016) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others"
2. Verdict dated 05.02.2014 (WPC 845/2014) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Sanjeev Kumar and others"
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shail Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others in WPC 406/2016 dated 19.01.2016 held as under:
Page 25 of 30"Since, despite the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is still filing general, irrelevant and vague queries, this Court dismisses the present writ petition with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi within a period of three weeks."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors in W.P. (C) 845/2014 dated 05.02.2014 held as under:
"6. In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still................
10. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kishan Lal Gera vs. State Information Commission, Haryana and Ors. CWP No. 20192 of 2014 dated 16.10.2014 wherein the Court while imposing cost of Rs. 30,000/- on the petitioner the Court held as under:
"However, petitioner still did not feel satisfied. That is why instant writ petition, which is frivolous on the face of it, has been filed before this Court. Petitioner seems to be obsessed with his rights only and is showing total ignorance towards his duties. Further, petitioner is claiming himself to be above board in all respect, whereas he is not exercising even the minimum possible restraint on himself, while leveling ill founded and serious allegations against respondent authorities. In his petition, he has said more than once that respondent No.3 is a habitual offender but he did not implead him by name, so that he may defend himself against allegations of malafide. In view of the abovesaid factual background, it is unhesitatingly held that petitioner is neither a bonafide litigant nor he had any cause of action to file and maintain instant writ petition, which amounts to blatant misuse of process of law and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
................. Consequently, instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs which are quantified at `30,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the Secretary, Haryana State Legal Services Authority Haryana, within three months from today."Page 26 of 30
The Commission also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
The Commission also observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
Page 27 of 30"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.Page 28 of 30
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions of Superior Courts, cited above as also similar matters already being heard and adjudicated by the Commission earlier, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Respondent is however instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email, as agreed.
However, the Commission instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 23.07.2020
Page 29 of 30
Copy to:-
1. The CMD, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Post Box No. - 64, Bilaspur - 495006 (with the advice that a sensitization and familiarization exercise regarding the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 needs to be undertaken forthwith within the Public Authority as in 29 such matters heard by the Commission today, the Commission observed that the officials of the Respondent Public Authority were not fully conversant with its provisions. Although the matters were discussed and decided as per extant provisions, the awareness of the Public Authority officials in respect of the RTI Act, 2005 needs to be strengthened forthwith. ) Page 30 of 30