Central Information Commission
Mrn S S Subhash Kumarnammi vs Rashtraiya Ispat Nigam Ltd. on 5 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/SS/C/2014/900103-YA
CIC/SS/C/2014/900104-YA
CIC/SS/C/2014/900105-YA
CIC/SS/C/2014/900106-YA
CIC/SS/C/2014/900109-YA
Date of Hearing : 05.05.2016
Date of Decision : 05.05.2016
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. N S S Subhash Kumar Nammi
Vishakhapatnam, AP
Respondent : CPIO
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.,
Vishakhapatanam
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.12.2013
PIO replied on :
First Appeal filed on :
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on :
Second Appeal/complaint received on : 10.03.2014
Since parties in the aforementioned appeals are same and the issue is also similar hence
the appeals are clubbed together for hearing and adjudication.
CIC/SS/C/2014/900103-YA
The appellant vide RTI application dated 23.12.2013 sought information against four points
asking for:
1) List of executives of works deptt, called & appeared for interviews for consideration
to Grade E-5 from E-4, during the years 2012-13 and 2013-14.
2) Parameter wise marks and the total marks obtained by each executive (of works) who
were promoted from E-4 to E-5, during 2012-13 & 2013-14.
3) Parameter wise marks and the total marks obtained by each executive (of works) who
were not promoted from E-4 to E-5, during 2012-13 & 2013-14.
4) Specific reasons for considering some executive/s during 2012-13 and 2013-14.
Background of the case and facts emerging during the hearing:
The CPIO did not provide any response to the RTI application and hence the Applicant filed the instant Complaint before the Commission on 04.03.2014.
Both the parties were present during the hearing. The Respondents had submitted a written note dated 16.04.2016 and sent the same again by email dated 03.05.2016. Contents of the written submissions indicate that against this particular RTI application dated 23.12.2013, the CPIO vide letter dated 23.06.2014 invited the appellant to inspect the relevant record/documents since the information sought was voluminous in nature, compilation whereof would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation. Despite this, the Appellant had not approached the Respondent for inspection of the records. The Appellant agreed that he had been called for inspecting the records in response to his RTI application, however, since no time and/or date had been specified hence he did not approach for the inspection of the records.
Decision:
The Commission finds that the Applicant in the instant case has filed a Complaint whereas he has sought relief (information) which can be provided only in a Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Commission deems it appropriate that the instant case be treated as an Appeal and directs the Respondent to provide inspection of the records within a week from the receipt of this order, redacting any information which is exempt from disclosure.
CIC/SS/C/2014/900104-YA CIC/SS/C/2014/900105-YA CIC/SS/C/2014/900106-YA CIC/SS/C/2014/900109-YA
i) The appellant vide RTI application/s dated 30.11.2013 sought information against eleven points asking for various things related to Job/Work performance of RINL-Works department;
ii) Vide RTI application dated 13.12.2013 sought information against fourteen points asking for various aspects of training, designation, area etc. related to a particular Employee bearing employee number 119784 as on 12.12.2013
iii) Vide RTI application dated 23.11.2013 sought information against ten points asking for information about incentives/benefits provided to employees of RINL for voluntary blood donation, or those who have joined Territorial Army Services, or those who are added to respective heads like Corporate Social Responsibility etc.
iv) Vide RTI application dated 23.11.2013 sought information against fifteen points asking for various information related to the aforementioned aspects.
Background of the case and facts emerging during the hearing:
Upon non receipt of any response The CPIO did not provide any response to the RTI application and hence the Applicant filed the instant Complaint before the Commission on 10.03.2014.
Both the parties were present during the hearing. The written submissions placed on record by the Respondents also indicate that the information as sought by the Appellant have already been provided. The Appellant submitted that he has already received the information as sought by him and accordingly, he prayed that the cases may be closed.
Decision:
Since the information sought by the Appellant have already been provided to him and he himself seeks closure of the cases, the Commission directs that the aforementioned cases may be treated as withdrawn.
The aforementioned appeals are thus disposed on the above terms.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(V.D.Naniwadekar) Designated Officer