Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Meena Pandey vs Nmdc Ltd. on 15 May, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NMDCL/A/2023/134268

Smt. MEENA PANDEY                                           ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
NMDC Ltd.

Date of Hearing                       :   13.05.2024
Date of Decision                      :   13.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner        :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :        14.03.2023
PIO replied on                    :        15.07.2023
First Appeal filed on             :        01.06.2023
First Appellate Order on          :        15.07.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :        21.08.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2023 seeking information on following points:-

"The undersigned seeks following information pertaining to your department, with regard to the, Steel Plant at Nagarnar, Chhattisgarh:

1. Details of all the Legal action taken against the companies whose work terminated by NMDC.

2. Details of all the fine-LD imposed against the companies whose work delayed.

3. Details of all the fine-LD imposed on the consultant for delay in the work of NISP Steel Plant."

The CPIO, NMDC Steel Plant furnished reply dated 15.07.2023 as under:-

With reference to the above, it is stated that the appeal through which Various information, though general in nature, is sought by the applicant mainly pertaining to contracts, was referred to the Contract Deptt. at NSL, Nagarnar.

The reply received from the Contract Deptt. is attached herewith as Annexure-I (1 Sheet).

Further, Section 6(1) of the RTI Act' 2005 mentions about specifying the particulars of the information to be sought by the applicant under RTI. The information sought by the applicant is quite general & vague in nature, as no specific Contract / Company / Consultant has been named in respect of whom the information could be provided. As the information sought by the applicant falls short of specific and clear-cut input as to the Contract / Company / Consultant in particular, it is not possible to provide any more information except the above at Annexure-I.

1. Required data/details are not available-Pertaining to Contracts section/department.

2. Single work is being processed by Contracts section which is pertaining to MECON-08M Contract & No LD has been imposed in that Case by dept/section. Remaining (work/Jobs) supplies are being dealt by other Respective department, therefore data is not available with Contracts section.

3. Single assignment (ie, Development of business plan for NSL by MIS MECON) is being dealt by Contracts section in which LD has not been imposed for by our dept.

4. Remaining Consultancy details are not pertaining to department, therefor data is not available in our department.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 15.07.2023 stated as under:-

"Following is the reply to the query paint wise:

1. Details of all the legal action taken against the companies whose work terminated by NMDC.

Required data/details one not available pertaining to contracts secretary department.

2) Details of all the file - LD imposed on the companies whose work delayed.

Single work is pertaining to MECON-ORM Contract & No LD has been imposed in that Case by our dept/section.

Remaining work(Jobs) supplies are being dealt by other Respective department, there fare data is not available with Contracts section.

3) Detail's of all the fine-LD imposed on consultant. for delay in the work of NiSp Steel plant.

Single assignment (i.e. Development of business plan fu NSL by MIS MECON) is being dealt by Contracts in which LD has not been imposed for by our dept.

Remaining consultancy details are not pertaining department; therefore data is not available in our department."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Written submission dated 08.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO, NMDC Steel Plant, Chhattisgarh and same has been taken on record for perusal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through video-conferencing Respondent: Mr. Yashwant Dewangan, AGM(Per), NMDC Steel Plant- through video-conferencing.

The Appellant stated that she is independent researcher and the information sought in the instant RTI Application essential for her research work. She further stated that the PIO has not furnished requisite information as sought in the instant RTI Application.

The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Appellant after obtaining the same from respective departments. He stated that point-wise reply has been furnished by the Contract deptt. and same has been duly provided to the Appellant.

Decision:

At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.

Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the custodian of information. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)