Central Information Commission
Deba Prasad Sahoo vs Mahanadi Coalfiels Limited on 12 November, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/MCFLT/C/2023/139570.
Shri Deba Prasad Sahoo. शिकायतकताा /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited.
Date of Hearing : 07.11.2024
Date of Decision : 07.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.03.2023
PIO replied on : 08.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 16.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 01.10.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Total Coal production from all Talkher mines in FY 10-11, 11-12, 12- 13, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20, 20-21.21-22 and 22-23.
2. Total Coal transportation by rail from all Talcher mines in FY 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 15-17, 178, 2019, 19-20, 20-21, 21- 22 and 22- 23.
3. Total coal transportation by road from all Talcher mines in FY 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20, 20-21, 21-22 and 22-23
4. Talcher Coal corridor map layout & plan. 5. Funds spent for construction of this coal corridor."
The CPIO vide letter dated 08.05.2023 replied as under:-
"Reply: The information is being collected and will be furnished after receipt of the same from concerned Dept."
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.05.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
The CPIO vide letter dated 05.06.2023 replied as under:
"Further to our online reply dated 08.05.2023 against your online application MCFLT/../00062 dtd 29.03.2023 the information related to transportation by rail as received from Sales Dept running into 1 page is enclosed herewith. The balance information is being collected and will be furnished after receipt of the same from concerned Dept.."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mrs Ranjeet Kaur, Dy. Mgr Persnl & CPIO Decision:
Upon the perusal of the case records, the Commission find that an appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO. The Complainant failed to substantiate that CPIO has acted with malafide intention while dealing with the RTI application of the Complainant.
In this regard, it is apt to mention that complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the Respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:- "...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
XXX Page 2 "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
XXX "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observation, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Complaint stands disposed off Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाशणत सत्याशित प्रशत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. शिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)