Central Information Commission
Sheikh Meraj vs Ministry Of Coal on 1 November, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/SS/C/2013/000120-YA
Date of Hearing : 12.02.2014
Date of Interim Decision : 12.02.2014
Date of Final Decision : 30.10.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Sheikh Meraj
Respondent : Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL)
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.02.2012
PIO replied on : 29.02.2012
First Appeal filed on :
First Appellate Order on :
2nd Appeal/complaint received on :
Background of the case:
The instant case arose out of an RTI application dated 23.02.2012 whereby the applicant sought information on eight relating to outsource labour engaged by BCCL, Block II Area, name of outsource agency, details of skilled/semi-skilled workers, amount of wages paid; safety material provided to the workers; whether these workers are covered under any Provident Fund scheme etc. The CPIO vide letter No. 561 dated 29.2.2012 transferred the RTI application to the Project Officer, JOCP, BCCL, Block-II Area (the holder of information) for providing requisite information.
Upon non receipt of any information from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 2.4.2012 before the FAA, which was not adjudicated necessitating the filing of Second appeal before the Commission.
26.03.2013 During the hearing before the Commission, the CPIO informed that he transferred the RTI application dated 23.02.2012 to the Project Officer, JOCP (holder of information) on 29.02.2012 and reminded the holder of information vide his letter dated 14.05.2012 and 22.07.2012. Finally, on receipt of information from the deemed CPIO, the CPIO vide letter No. 1019 dated 17.11.2012 replied to the appellant. The FAA vide his order No. 69 dated 16.03.2013 further elaborated point-wise information to the appellant. The appellant submitted during the hearing that though the CPIO has provided a list of 101 workers, there were certain omissions in the list provided to him. The appellant agreed to provide the omitted names and CPIO agreed to provide requisite information after verification. The appellant further submitted that the CPIO has not provided information on Point No. 7 of the RTI application regarding safety material provided to the workers.
In this backdrop of facts, the Commission vide order dated 26.03.2013 held as follows:
"5. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide requisite information on Point No. 5 and 7 of the RTI application to the appellant free of cost within two weeks of receipt of this order.
6. The Commission is of the view that the Project Officer, P.O. JOCP, BCCL, Block-II Area, Jamania (the holder of information) has prima- facie caused a delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the appellant. A separate show-cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Actwould be issued to the Project Officer, P.O. JOCP, BCCL, Block-II Area, Jamania (the holder of information) asking him to show-cause why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed upon him."
Pursuant to the above order, dated 26.03.2013, a Show Cause notice of even number dated 28.03.2013 was issued to Shri Shiv Ram, Project Officer, Jamunia OCP and Shri Mohd. Sirajuddin, the then Project Manager, Jamunia OCP u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act for causing delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the appellant. Both the officers of Respondent viz. Sh. Shiv Ram and Mohd Sirajuddin appeared before the Commission on 12.02.2014.
12.02.2014: Shri Shiv Ram and Mohd. Sirajuddin submitted their written submissions contending as follows:
The appellant has filed his RTI application dated 23.2.2012 and sought certain information from the CPIO, Block-II Area of BCCL. • The CPIO vide his letter dated 29.2.2012 transferred the said application to the Project Officer, JOCP which was received in his office on 21.3.2012.
That on receipt of the said application, the same was transferred to Project Manager, Jamunia OCP vide reference dated 22/25.3.2012 with a copy to Manager (Personnel).
The Project Manager, Jamunia OCP was issued a reminder vide letter dated 30.5.2012.
After receipt of second reminder the Manager Personnel, JOCP got the information prepared in the office of PIO, B-II Area as per verbal direction of the Project Officer. The Project Manager was transferred from Jamunia OCP on 23.7.2012.
The information which was required to be given by the office of the Area Finance Manager was furnished by him to the PIO, B-II area on 16.11.2012 after which the information seeker was provided requisite information by the CPIO vide his letter dated 17.11.2012.
That the RTI application was also concerned with the office of Area Finance Manager, Area Personnel Manager/PIO, Block-II Area (PIO himself certifying manpower wages of PF deduction etc. in respect of M/s. BKB Transport Pvt. Ltd. every month), Area Civil Engineer in addition to the unit that is Jamunia OCP having different departments. That Jamunia OCP has got two working mines, one departmental patch while the other in outsourcing under M/s. BKB Transport (P) Ltd. having a total annual production of 4 million tonnes of coal. That objection was raised by the appellant before the Commission of which a copy was given to the PIO, B-II Area which has been marked by him on 13.2.2013. The PIO on receipt of the said objection dated 7.2.2013 issued letter to M/s. BKB Transport (P) Ltd. vide letter dated 11.3.2013 with directions to furnish the reply of points of the objection raised by the appellant without any intimation given to him. That further, the PIO, B-II Area vide his letter dated 6.4.2013 enclosing therewith copy of order of the Commission dated 26.3.3013 had directed him to submit information on Point No. 5 and 7 of the RTI application within one week and accordingly the same has been complied with by furnishing the information to the PIO vide letter dated 7.4.2013 and 10.4.2013.
That further corrective action has been taken by issuing fresh authorization to Manager (P), JOCP as Nodal Officer to coordinate all the departments of Jamunia Unit in respect of RTI reply to eliminate any delay in reply of RTI matters in future.
In view of above submissions it is evident that the cause of delay in furnishing the information beyond 100 days does not rest directly on him because submission of above information got delayed by Project Manager, and Manager (P), JOCP to whom the RTI application was transferred and was reminded by him and from the AFM who submitted the information on 16.11.2012 to the APM/PIO. After examining the responses of Shri Shiv Ram, Chief Manager and Mohd. Sirajuddin, the Senior Manager, the co-ordinate Bench of the Commission hearing the matter held vide order dated 12.02.2014 that these two persons could not be held solely responsible for the delay. And since the RTI queries were also related to Area Finance Manager, Apea Personnel Manager of BCCL Block -II Area, the concerned Information Commissioner held as follows:
"...The matter is remitted to Shri S. Chatterjee, GMFAA, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Block-II Area, Dhanbad with directions to conduct an enquiry into the matter and identify the persons responsible for the delay. The FAA will comply with the directions of the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order. The decision on penalty will be decided by the Commission on receipt of report from the FAA..."
21.03.2017: On non compliance of the aforesaid directions, Summons to appear in person was issued upon Sh. S Chatterjee, GM/FAA, BCCL, Block- II Area, Dhanbad by this Commission on 21.03.2017. No response has been received so far from the Respondents.
DECISION: 27.10.2017 After examining the facts of the case as discussed above, the Commission notes that in response to the Show Cause notice dated 28.03.2013, the then Project Officer, Jamunia OCP- Sh. Shiv Ram vide letter dated 11.04.2013 had explained that the RTI application received in their office on 21.03.2012 had been duly transferred to the Project Manager Jamunia OCP on 22/25.03.2012. The predecessor Information Commissioner was convinced and stated so in her order dated 13.02.2014 that merely Sh. Shiv Ram and Mohd. Sirajuddin were not responsible for the delay caused in furnishing of information.
Perusal of documents placed on record further reveal the letter dated 11.04.2013 submitted by Sh. Shiv Ram explaining the entire chronology of events.
After examining the above documents, the Commission is of the opinion that due to lapse of reasonable period of time, the issue of delay caused and tracing the responsible officer has lost its significance. Pursuing this entire exercise is not likely to yield any fruitful result. Hence, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the instant case is fit to be closed with no further directions.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(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.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer