Central Information Commission
Sanjivv B Dua vs Edcil (India) Limited on 9 October, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/EDCIL/A/2018/159389/01801
File no.: CIC/EDCIL/A/2018/159389
In the matter of:
Sanjiivv B Dua
... Appellant
VS
PIO
EDCIL (India) Limited,
Corporate Office EDCIL House,
18A, Sector - 16 A, Noida - 201 301, U.P.
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 19/06/2018 CPIO replied on : 17/07/2018 First appeal filed on : 23/07/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 14/08/2018 Second Appeal dated : 26/09/2018 Date of Hearing : 04/10/2019 Date of Decision : 04/10/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Sunil Kumar Mathur, DGM(HR) and PIO, present in person Information Sought:
The appellant has sought copies of all internal notings, minutes of interview committee, examination sheets/answer sheets, evaluation of their examination sheets, interview marks, copies of their ACRs for the period 2011 to 2016, etc., in the case of 2 employees who got promoted to the post of Asst. Manager.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Commission is in receipt of an email from the appellant dated 04.10.2019 wherein he had requested the Commission to adjourn his case as he got to know about the hearing on 03.10.2019 only owing to the fact that the address which was mentioned in his RTI application was his official address form where he had retired on 31.05.2019.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 17.07.2018. He further submitted that the appellant was an employee of the organisation and in the last 04-05 months of his retirement he had filed around 55 RTI applications and all his applications have been duly replied to. He further submitted that he is filing repeated RTIs on similar subjects and is unnecessarily harassing the organisation for some of his personal motives.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 17.07.2018 which was also upheld by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, no further relief can be provided to the appellant.
It is also noted that the appellant's prayer for adjournment of the case cannot be accepted at such a late stage. The listing of his appeal deprived other appellants of the chance of being heard by the Commission today. The Appellant's request for postponement, made via email on the same date of hearing, left the Commission no time to slot some other appeals during the same time. Therefore, postponement of the hearing at the very last minute would have resulted in wastage of time of the Commission and of the Respondents, who were present. In view of the foregoing, it was not considered desirable to postpone the hearing and the matter was heard exparte and considered on merits.2
File no.: CIC/EDCIL/A/2018/159389 Decision:
Based on the above observations, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3