Central Information Commission
R Sudhakaran vs Ministry Of Coal on 13 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCOAL/A/2025/100204
R Sudhakaran .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
MINISTRY OF COAL, LOK NAYAK
BAHWAN, KHAN MARKET NEW
DELHI-110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2026
Date of Decision : 13.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.08.2024
CPIO replied on : 14.08.2024
First appeal filed on : 20.10.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal dated : 02.01.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.08.2024(offline) seeking the following information:
"1)kindly inform the action taken on my request dated 07/07/24.
2)please provide my request letter dated 07/07/24 as details of transferred department
3)07/07/24-Dated my request letter pending details please provide information CIC/MCOAL/A/2025/100204 Page 1 of 6
4)Please provide the details regarding rejection of my request letter dated 07/07/24
5)Please provide certified copy of my request letter dated 07/07/24 as recorded in their departmental office records."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.08.2024 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is informed that your request dated 7.7.2024 has been forwarded to NLC India Limited through CPGRAM portal and information may be available with NLC India Limited. Hence, your RTI application has been transferred to NLC India Limited under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 with request to provide the information directly to you under RTI Act, 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.10.2024. The FAA order is not available on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Hitlar Singh, Under Secretary and Shri Ram Babu Sahu, Section Officer, attended the hearing in person.
(Hearing through VC could not be connected due to some technical problem with the NIC) Shri S. Senguttuvan, CPIO, attended the hearing through audio conference.
5. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
6. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application has raised a grievance pertaining to land acquisition and the same has been resolved on 12.09.2024, stating as under:
"Reply:
The Grievance petition Registration No. PRIW1/P/2024/0000165, Dated: 14.08.2024, of Shri.R.Sudhakaran, has been received through CPGRAMS Online portal on 16.08.2024, for the which the following reply is provided.CIC/MCOAL/A/2025/100204 Page 2 of 6
The available copy of documents related to his grandfather was already provided to Shri.R.Sudhakaran (Lr.No.TA/ES-III/2222-D/1205/2022 Dt.21.12.2022 & Lr.No.TA/ES-III/2224-K/0801/2023 Dt.21.08.2023). Moreover, for similar request, reply had been already communicated to the individual (vide ref. Lr.No.TA/ES-III/2222-K/0201/2024 Dt.06.02.2024). The copies of communications which were already provided to Shri.R.Sudhakaran are enclosed herewith.
This is for kind information and the grievance may be treated as closed."
7. He further added that the Appellant has filed multiple RTI Applications on the same subject-matter and their office has also provided an opportunity of inspection of the relevant records to the Appellant.
8. A written submission has been received from Shri S. Senguttuvan, CPIO, vide letter dated 02.03.2026, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"1. At the outset, it is humbly submitted that the Central Public Information Officer Under Right to Information Act 2005, in NLC India Limited (herein after called "CPIO") has not refused information to the appellant which he is legally entitled to under the provisions and sprit of Right to Information Act, 2005. The facts and circumstances involved in this case are submitted below for better appreciation and disposal of the appeal by this Hon'ble Commission.
2. The Respondent humbly submits herein is the Central Public Information Officer under Right to Information Act, 2005, duly nominated by NLC India Limited, a Government of India Enterprise.
3. The respondent hereby submits the facts about the present Appeal filed by the Appellant Shri R. Sudhakaran in connection to the hearing notice (hearing scheduled on 12.03.2026) transferred by the Ministry of Coal:
4. In the extant application, initially the Appellant submitted a grievance to Ministry of Coal vide a letter dated 07.07.2024 requesting for their interference in matters relating to the Land acquisition by NLCIL. In his complaint he had stated that his father and grandfather had given 20 acres of land to NLCIL in the year 1957. It is claimed by the Appellant that though NLCIL guaranteed 2 acres of alternative land for agriculture, for the past 60 years NLCIL had not given the alternate land and cheated their CIC/MCOAL/A/2025/100204 Page 3 of 6 family. Hence, the appellant requested the Ministry to take action on the NLCIL officials. Copy of the complaint letter Dt. 07-07-2024 is enclosed.
5. It is further submitted that subsequently the appellant had sought the action taken on his grievance letter Dt:07.07.2024 as information under RTI Act, vide his RTI application dated 03.08.2024 for which CPIO of the Ministry of Coal had given a reply on 14.08.2024. It is informed by the Ministry that his request has been transferred to NLCIL through CPGRAM portal and information may be available with NLCIL. Copy of the Letter is enclosed. (CPIO, NLCIL had not received any RTI application in this regard.)
6. The grievance mentioned in his complaint letter to the Ministry was addressed by NLCIL through approved practice of CPGRAM reply and the grievance petition has been received through portal on 16-08-2024 and case disposed of vide Lt. No. CORP/HR/ES/1316/CPGRAMS-40/2024 Dt:
12-09-2024. The same was communicated to appellant. Copy of the communication sent to appellant is enclosed.
7. However, the appellant approached this Hon'ble Commission with his second appeal without approaching FAA of NLCIL. The respondent more respectfully submit that the said RTI application was not dealt by CPIO, NLCIL. However, the Grievance mentioned in his letter was already redressed by NLCIL and suitable reply was furnished to the Appellant.
8. It is pertinent to furnish the following facts with respect to the Appellant herein:
Shri Sudhakar, S/o Ramar, Is a habitual RTI Applicant. Every year he files around 25 to 30 RT1 application seeking various information including Land acquired by NLCIL.
He has been stating that his grandfather had given 20 acres of land to NLCIL and NLCIL had deceived their family. However, appellant had not submitted adequate proof to substantiate his claim like copy of award copy, survey Number or any legitimate record to prove his claim in various occasions.
Further he is claiming that their family land was given to NLCIL, name of land owner, details of land, survey number award copy or any documental proof was not attached / furnished in the above said complaint. During the year 2022, he was permitted to verify the land records relating to Vilankulam village, (where appellant's grandparents were living before their land was acquired by NLCIL.) based on his RTI application vide File CIC/MCOAL/A/2025/100204 Page 4 of 6 No. 338/2022, After verification on 17.11.2022, records identified as related to grandfather issued (certified copies of land records) of his choice. was Again, in the year 2023-24 he sought various record relating to land acquisition stating his grandfather had given land. He had filed 9 second appeals under RTI Act and all were the same matters for grandfather's land and in no case The Hon'ble Information Commissioner / The CIC had given any direction to CPIO. (For eg: Hearing on 07-03-2024 for the file No. CIC/NLCOR/A/2023/125264 & on 07-02-2023 for the file No. CIC/NLCOR/A/2022/143918) In the year 2024-25, the appellant field 25 RTI applications and preferred
9 cases for second appeal. Here again The Hon'ble Information Commissioner had not given any direction to CPIO other than to furnish the copy of written submission to the appellant. In the year 2024, The appellant had requested alternate land for his ancestral property. Against which General Manger/Land Acquisition Department replied that the alternate land was given at Vijayamanagaram village in Virdhachalam Taluka for the land acquired by NLCIL. No other alternate land will be allotted again "vide Lr.No. 2211/GM/Land/2024/dt.05.06.2024 (The copy of the same is enclosed) The appellant also had the habit of writing complaints to various authorities without any specific data / details and seek information based on the complaint under RTI Act, 2005, there by MISUSING the RTI Act, 2005.
Thus, the information sought by the Appellant were already provided 8/ appeals filed by the Appellant on the same grounds were duly disposed off by the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner as submitted above.
9. In the above circumstances, the Respondent CPIO, more respectfully prays the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner to fix the Venue at N.I.C. Video Conferencing Studio, Collectorate, Cuddalore-607001 (Tamil Nadu) to attend the hearing.
10. The Respondent CPIO, more respectfully prays the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to consider the facts submitted above and to pass an appropriate order and close the second appeal filed by the appellant before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner and thus render justice."
CIC/MCOAL/A/2025/100204 Page 5 of 6Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been given to the Appellant by the Respondent. Further, the grievance of the Appellant pertaining to land acquisition has been resolved and the relevant information has been given to the Appellant on 12.09.2024. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasishta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 CIC/MCOAL/A/2025/100204 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)