Central Information Commission
Sinibas Parnigrahi vs Ministry Of Mines on 11 April, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/002327
Date of Hearing : 22.11.2016
Date of Interim Decision : 22.11.2016
Date of Final Decision : 06.04.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Srinibas Panigrahi, Keonjhar
(Odisha)
Respondent : CPIO, Orissa Mineral
Development Company Ltd.,
Odisha
Through:
Shri S. Chakraborty, CPIO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.06.2015
PIO replied on : No reply
First Appeal filed on : 18.08.2015
First Appellate Order on : No order passed
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 10.11.2015
Information soughtand background of the case:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 24.06.2015 sought information regarding payment of contractual dues. CPIO did not respond to the RTI application. The appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant aggrieved inasmuch as certain sum of money was due to him from OMDC/ Bird Group of Companies having executed works in 2013-2014 but till date, payment for the same is pending. The appellant states that having no other means to ascertain the status of processing of his dues, the present RTI application was preferred but the same remained unreplied. Per contra, the CPIO states that the RTI could not be answered timely as the CPIO had resigned in March 2015 and there was no CPIO to look after the RTI applications. He states that a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- has been processed and proposal for the same is pending for approval of the competent authority ie. Managing Director. He contends that the first appeal preferred by appellant was not processed for want of requisite fee.
The appellant further states that he is being unnecessarily harassed despite having submitted claim timely and constrained to invoke RTI to know the status of his claim.
Interim Decision (22.11.2016):
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds the acts of respondent corporation to be utterly insensitive. The parties are not at variance qua the fact that certain amount is payable to the appellant. The claim is stated to be pending approval. Adding insult to the injury, the respondents are keeping the status of processing of claim of appellant under wraps. Whereas the appellant had sought specific documents wherein recommendation of GM, OMDC Ltd. was forwarded to the Managing Director, OMDC for release of dues to the appellant, on 19.08.2015 the CPIO replied as under:
Sub: Reply under RTI Act Sir, With reference to your application dated 06.04.2005 and our last interim letter dated 21st April, 2015 kindly note that the matter has been processed and the records show that the proposal of Rs. 1,90,000/- from 01.04.2013 to 31.10.2014 @ Rs. 10,000/- per month had been initiated and the same was pending for approval.
Sd/-
CPIO A perusal of reply by CPIO reveals that specific information sought was not furnished to the appellant. Even in the course of hearing, the CPIO did not advert to answer the specific query put by the Commission as to why the copy of recommendation of General Manager addressed to MD, OMDC was not made available to the appellant. A prima facie case of denial of information is made out against the respondent CPIO. The Commission records with concern that the CPIO is unaware of basic provisions with respect to first appeals and has averred on record that the first appeal could not be processed for want of fee.
The CPIO is hereby directed to furnish information regarding the actual status and reasons for delay in processing the claim of appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of this order and submit report of compliance before the Commission. Needless to say, the recommendation letter by GM addressed to MD, OMDC shall be furnished to the appellant. The order shall be complied within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.
Further, the CPIO is hereby required to show cause as to why the appellant may not be awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for having suffered detriment due to denial of information. Written submissions, if any must reach the Commission by 26.12.2016. The registry is directed to place the appeal before the Commission on the limited point of consideration on quantum of compensation. If found necessary, further hearing would be scheduled in due course.
Order reserved.
Decision (06.04.2017):
The present appeal is taken up today upon a reference made by the registry of this bench. In terms of the interim order dated 22.11.2016, the respondent CPIO was directed to show cause as to why the appellant may not be compensated to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for having suffered detriment due to denial of information. However, no explanation has been tendered on the behalf of the respondent despite an elapse of over 3 months after the scheduled date. In such circumstances, the Commission finds that the respondent has no explanation to offer either on admissibility of award of compensation to the appellant as well as tentative quantum of compensation. Despite abundant opportunity, the respondent authority did not bring anything on the record to dispel the presumption of the Commission.
Considering the commercial nature of transaction whereupon the present appeal is predicated and the established fact of denial of information and time involved, the Commission finds the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- awardable to the appellant to be fair & just. The respondent public authority shall ensure payment of aforesaid compensation amount to the appellant by 15.05.2017, under intimation to the Commission.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner In terms of the final decision of the Commission dated 06.04.2017, the respondent public authority is directed to remit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the appellant through a Banker's Cheque/ Demand Draft in the name of Srinibas Panigrahi payable at Kendujhar, Orissa. The CPIO shall remit the aforesaid Demand Draft/ Banker's Cheque to Shri S.P. Beck, Joint Secretary (Admn.) Room No. 302, Second Floor, Central Information Commission, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 by 15.05.2017.
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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-
Central Public Information Officer under RTI First Appellate Authority under RTI Nodal Officer - RTI Cell, Competent Officer, Orissa Mineral Development Company Ltd., Orissa Mineral Development Company Ltd., Post Office - Thakurani, Via-Barbil, AG-104, "Sourav Abasan", District - Keonjhar-758035 (Odisha). 2nd Floor, Salt Lake City, Sector-II, Kolkata-700091 (West Bengal).
Shri Srinibas Panigrahi At : Near Manoj Manjari Shishu Bhawan, Post Office - Keonjhargarh, District - Keonjhar-758001 (Odisha).