Central Information Commission
Dilip Timblo vs Indian Bureau Of Mines on 9 March, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/IBOMN/A/2019/129783
Dilip Timblo ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
M/o. Mines, Indian Bureau of
Mines, Nagpur
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21-11-2018 FA : 04-03-2019 SA : 24-06-2019
CPIO : 09-01-2019 FAO : 13-03-2019 Hearing : 25-02-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur seeking following information:-
"Form H-1 (Annual Return): Part l, Part ll, Part lll, Part lV and Part V of the mentioned 18 mines for the given years."
2. The CPIO responded on 09-01-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 04-03-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 13- 03-2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Dilip Timblo attended the hearing along with his representative Mr. S. Desai through audio conferencing. Mr. M M Chaskar, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant contended that the respondent has supplied him information in respect of only 3 mines out of 18 mines. Therefore, the CPIO Page 1 of 3 should be directed to provide him complete information including Part VI of Form H-1 (Annual Return).
5. The respondent contended that Part VI of Form H-1 (Annual Return) submitted by the mines contains commercially confidential information which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. He also apprised the Commission that the matter is sub judice and therefore, they did not provide rest of the information.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that mere pendency of the proceedings cannot be a sole ground for denying information under the RTI Act, 2005. Unless there is any stay on providing the information, it cannot be denied to the appellant and hence, denial of information merely on the ground of matter being sub judice is not tenable. In this context, it is apt to cite the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R. K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010 wherein, it was observed as follows:-
"5...The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
7. In view of the foregoing, this Commission directs the respondent to provide a revised reply to the appellant thereby claiming specific exemptions wherever applicable as per the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 30 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु )
दनांक / Date : 25-02-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 2 of 3
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
M/o. Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines
Mining and Mineral Statistics Division
Indira Bhawan, Civil Lines
Nagapur, Maharashtra-440001
2. Dilip Timblo
Page 3 of 3