Central Information Commission
Ramesh Agrawal vs Ministry Of Coal on 3 July, 2020
के य सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/MCOAL/A/2019/646343-BJ
Dr. Ramesh Agrawal
(E - Mail: [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & Under Secretary (CLD & IT)
Ministry Of Coal
350 A Wing, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi - 110001
2. CPIO & Under Secretary
CBA-I Section, Ministry Of Coal
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001
... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.07.2020
Date of Decision : 03.07.2020
Date of RTI application 09.04.2019
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 21.05.2019
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in reference to Letter No. CIL/S&M/Sponge/MOC/203 dated 26.06.2009 addressed to Under Secretary, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi, copy of application from M/s Nalwa Steel & Power Ltd. to grant permission to buy coal fines from captive mines of M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. and copy of permission letter from the competent authority issued to buy coal fines from captive mines of M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.Page 1 of 4
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Under Secretary to the Govt. of India & CPIO in person;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Network Engineer NIC studio at Raigarh confirmed the absence of the Appellant. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO and stated that CBI investigation in the matter is underway and therefore, the information sought could not be furnished at this stage. Accordingly, a suitable response was provided to the Appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent further relied on its written submissions, a copy of which was not endorsed to the Appellant. The Respondent however, agreed to forward a copy of the written submission to the Appellant, as well.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, Ministry of Coal, dated 24th June, 2020 wherein it was informed that the online RTI application No. MCOAL/R/2019/50067 dated 09.04.2019 was received in the office of the undersigned on 03.05.2019 from the CPIO CA-1 Section of the Ministry. The request of the Applicant was examined and found that the information sought by the Applicant were under investigation by CBI, accordingly the information sought was denied under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 2005. The position was also informed to the Applicant vide Ministry's letter No. dated 24.05.2020 through mail and by post (copy enclosed). It was also informed that the First online Appeal No. MCOAL/A/2019/60020 dated 21.05.2019 was disposed online by First Appellate Authority (copy enclosed).
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, M/o Coal, CBA I Section, dated 30th June, 2020 wherein it was submitted that the RTI application dated 09.04.2019 was replied on 03.05.2019. It took long time to reply as during April, 2019, Lok Sabha election was under process and staff of CBA-I was also deputed in the process. Also, the information requested by the Applicant was very generalized and no specific file was mentioned to look into. Later, another RTI on the same subject was transferred to the Ministry from CIL and it was found that matter was related to CLD Section. So, reply was sent on 03.05.2019 (copy enclosed).
The Commission referred to the 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."Page 2 of 4
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."
7. "....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 Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
Page 3 of 4DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Respondent is however, instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within a period of 15 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 (Email:
[email protected]), as agreed.
The Appeal stands 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 त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (K.L. Das) (के.एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 03.07.2020 Page 4 of 4