Central Information Commission
Mohd Jameel Akhtar vs Western Coalfileds Limited on 12 November, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure)
Mohd Jameel Akhtar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Eastern Coalfields Ltd,
Godda, Jharkhand ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 10.05.2024 Not on 20.06.2024 Not on 15.07.2024
123397
record record
2. 02.07.2024 Not on 22.08.2024 Not on 03.09.2024
133859
record record
3. 02.07.2024 Not on 22.08.2024 Not on 03.09.2024
133858
record record
4. 02.07.2024 Not on 22.08.2024 Not on 03.09.2024
133857
record record
5. 02.07.2024 Not on 22.08.2024 Not on 03.09.2024
133856
record record
6. 02.07.2024 Not on 22.08.2024 Not on 03.09.2024
133990
record record
7. 25.06.2024 Not on 22.08.2024 Not on 03.09.2024
129056
record record
Page 1 of 12
Note: The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
similar RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025
Date of Decision: 10.11.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/WCLTD/A/2024/123397
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "भंडार िवभाग राजमहल े का Depot officer/MM माह माच के पुव कौन था, का नाम एवं पद ा है।
2. ा Depot officer/MM के ारा भंडार िवभाग राजमहल े संचािलत होता है ?
3. भंडार िवभाग राजमहल े का वतमान Depot officer /MM का नाम एवं पद ां है ?
4. भंडार िवभाग राजमहल े का Depot officer/MM के अिधन िकतने कमचारी कायरत ह? एवं उनका नाम एवं पद ा है ?
5. Depot officer /MM का राजमहल े म िकतना िदन लगातार सेवा ईसीएल ल के तहत दे सकता है? िवभागीय मे ुअल की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।..." etc. 1.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record 1.2. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.07.2024. Page 2 of 12
Second Appeal No. CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133859
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "M/s. RA Mining Pvt Ltd Rajmahal Camp को ईसीएल के ारा िकतने वष का ठे का ा है ? कंपनी को आवंिटत कायादे श की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।
2. M/S. RA Mining Pvt Ltd Rajmahal Camp को काय आदे श ा के पूव उपल कराई गई NIT की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।
3. ा M/s. RA Mining Pvt Ltd Rajmahal Camp के ारा रै यतों का जमीन से नौकरी, भु-मुआवजा एवं गाँ वों का पुनवास िकया जाता है ?
4. M/s. RA Mining Pvt Ltd Rajmahal Camp के ारा CSR फंड से िकन-िकन गाँवों म ा- ा काय िकया जा रहा है ? काय सिहत उनकी सूची उपल कराई जाय।
5. राजमहल प रयोजना ललमिटया ईसीएल/क सरकार ारा HPC रे ट पेमंट के िलए M/s.
RA Mining Pvt Ltd Rajmahal Camp को आदे श िनगत की गई है ? यिद की गई है तो वष 2022 से 2024 तक का आदे श की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।..." etc. 2.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record 2.2. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.09.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133858
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "BLS (JV) Rajmahal Camp को ईसीएल के ारा िकतने वष का ठे का ा है? कंपनी को आविटत कायादे श की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।
Page 3 of 12
2. BLS (JV) Rajmahal Camp को काय आदे श ा के पूव उपल कराई गई NIT की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।
3. ा BLS (JV) Rajmahal Camp के ारा रै यतों का जमीन से नौकरी, भु-मुआवजा एवं गाँ वों का पुनवास िकया जाता है?
4. BLS (JV) Rajmahal Camp के ारा CSR फंड से िकन-िकन गाँवों म ा- ा काय िकया जा रहा है? काय सिहत उनकी सूची उपल कराई जाय।
5. राजमहलल प रयोजना ललमिटया ईसीएल/क सरकार ारा HPC रे ट पेमंट के िलए BLS (JV) Rajmahal Camp को आदे श िनगत की गई है ? यिद की गई है तो वष 2022 से 2024 तक का आदे श की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।..." etc. 3.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record 3.2. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.09.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133857
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "राजमहल प रयोजना ईसीएल से संबंिधत िन ां िकत सूचना चाहता ँ।
० गाँव पानी पानी काय गांव म आवंिटत टं कर पानी की पेयजल
सं का टकर टकी आदे श आवंिटत पेय जल का गुनव ा की पानी
नाम इं जन का का नं० टं कर की टं कर का मता जाँच करने टं कर
(गाड़ी) रिज० एवं ितिथ सं ा यािपत वाले Filling
का नं० पदािधकारी पदािधकारी point
रिज० का नाम का नाम का
नं० नाम
Page 4 of 12
4.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record 4.2. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.09.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133856
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "M/s. MECON Ltd Rajmahal Camp को ईसीएल के ारा िकतने वष का ठे का ा है ? कंपनी को आवंिटत कायादे श की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।
2. M/s. MECON Ltd Rajmahal Camp को काय आदे श ा के पूव उपल कराई गई NIT की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।
3. ा M/s. MECON Ltd Rajmahal Camp के ारा रै यतों का जमीन से नौकरी, भु-
मुआवजा एवं गोयों का पुनवास िकया जाता है ?
4. M/s. MECON Ltd Rajmahal Camp के ारा CSR फंड से िकन-िकन गाँ वों म ा- ा काय िकया जा रहा है ? काय सिहत उनकी सूची उपल कराई जाय।
5. राजमहलल प रयोजना ललमिटया ईसीएल/क सरकार ारा HPC रे ट पेमंट के िलए M/s.
MECON Ltd Rajmahal Camp को आदे श िनगत की गई है ? यिद की गई है तो वष 2022 से 2024 तक का आदे श की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।..." etc. 5.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record 5.2. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.09.2024.
Page 5 of 12Second Appeal No. CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133990
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "अंबे माईिनंग ाईवट िलिमटे ड को ईसीएल के ारा िकतने वष का ठे का ा है ? कंपनी को आवंिटत कायादे श की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।
2. अंबे माईिनंग ाईवट िलिमटे ड को काय आदे श ा के पूव उपल कराई गई NIT की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।
3. ा अंबे माईिनंग ाईवट िलिमटे ड के ारा रै यतों का जमीन से नौकरी, भु-मुआवजा एवं गाँ वों का पुनवास िकया जाता है?
4. अंबे माईिनंग ाईवट िलिमटे ड के ारा CSR फंड से िकन-िकन गाँवों म ा- ा काय िकया जा रहा है? काय सिहत उनकी सूची उपल कराई जाय।
5. राजमहलल प रयोजना ललमिटया ईसीएल/क सरकार ारा HPC रे ट पेमंट के िलए अंबे माईिनंग ाईवट िलिमटे ड को आदे श िनगत की गई है ? यिद की गई है तो वष 2022 से 2024 तक का आदे श की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।...." etc. 6.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record 6.2. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.09.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/129056
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. " रा-सी मो े कारलो रा माईिनंग ाईवट िलिमटे ड को ईसीएल के ारा िकतने वष का ठे का ा है ? कंपनी को आवंिटत कायादे श की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय। Page 6 of 12
2. रा-सी मो े कारलो रा माईिनंग ाईवट िलिमटे ड को काय आदे श ा के पूव उपल कराई गई NIT की मािणत ित उपल कराया जाय।
3. ा रा-सी मो े कारलो रा माईिनंग ाईवट िलिमटे ड के ारा रै यतों का जमीन से नौकरी, भु-मुआवजा एवं गाँ वों का पुनवास िकया जाता है ?
4. रा-सी मो े कारलो रा माईिनंग ाईवट िलिमटे ड के ारा CSR फंड से िकन-िकन गाँ वों म ा- ा काय िकया जा रहा है? काय सिहत उनकी सूची उपल कराई जाय।
5. रा-सी मो े कारलो रा माईिनंग ाईवट िलिमटे ड के ारा ाम फुलबिड़या, लीलातरी, ह रपुर, हाहा जोर, डु म रया एवं खैरबनी म पेयजल हेतु पानी टकर उपल कराई गई है ?
यिद उपल कराई है तो उनकी जानकारी िन प म दी जाय।
० सं गाँव पानी काय गांव म आवंिटत पेय टं कर पानी की पेयजल
का टकर आदे श आवंिटत जल टं कर का गुनव ा की पानी
नाम गाड़ी का नं० टं कर की का मता जाँच करने टं कर
का एवं ितिथ सं ा यािपत वाले Filling
रिज० पदािधकारी पदािधकारी point
नं० का नाम का नाम का नाम
7.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record 7.2. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.09.2024. Page 7 of 12 Hearing Proceedings & Decision
8. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Manoj Emmanuel Tudu, SM(HR) & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
9. The parties were heard whereby at the outset, the Appellant while stating his contention in respect of Second Appeal No. CIC/WCLTD/A/2024/123397 stated that he is only seeking for relief on point no.5 of the RTI Application. Upon being questioned about the fact that the second appeal was filed alleging non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, however, at the hearing stage, the contention is altogether different, the Appellant appeared clueless and did not deny receipt of the CPIO's reply prior to filing of the second appeal.
On the other hand, the Respondent was although able to state the date of all the replies provided to the Appellant in the instant cases, but it was found that in the absence of a copy of any of these replies placed on record, no further action could be taken in the matter. Hence, the Commission directed the CPIO to upload on the online dak portal of CIC all the replies sent to the Appellant till date in these cases latest by end of the day to allow determination of further course of action.
Noting that neither of the parties ensured placing on record the replies sent or received in the instant cases, the Commission concluded the hearing to avoid causing wastage of time and resources and reserved the decision.
10. Subsequent to the hearing, the CPIO filed submissions (signed on 03.11.2025) in each of these cases under endorsement to the Appellant. The Commission having perused the case-wise status of replies as well as the FAA's orders issued in the instant set of cases observes that except in Second Appeal No. CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133857, where the CPIO has replied only after the issuance of the hearing notice of the second Page 8 of 12 appeal, the CPIO has provided replies to the other six RTI Application(s) with a delay of 1.5-2 months delay approximately. Further, the FAA has issued orders in respect of all the First Appeal(s) albeit after considerable delay, yet, has ensured proper perusal of the replies provided and issued directions wherever any deficiency was found as well as has recorded strictures against no reply found in Second Appeal No. CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133857.
Now, having perused the nature and sheer magnitude of the information sought for in the instant set of cases amounting to mammoth data; questions seeking clarifications and answers to interrogative queries; while some asking for the personal information of various third parties, the Commission is not inclined to question the delay caused by the Respondent in providing the replies or the omission in one of the cases for having caused deemed refusal until the second appeal was taken up. Pertinently so, the CPIO & FAA have facilitated the Appellant with information in each of these cases after collecting and collating various scattered records and it is observed that the FAA has noted in all of their orders that the Appellant did not avail the opportunity of hearing despite notice and call. Notably further, in the FAA order referred by the CPIO in Second Appeal No. CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133859, it is observed that the FAA recorded that the Appellant remained silent after receiving the information, which was similar to the stance taken by the Appellant before the bench in respect of Second Appeal No. CIC/WCLTD/A/2024/123397. The CPIO has also placed on record that the Appellant is a habitual information seeker and remains absent in all of the First Appeal hearings. The observations of the bench in respect of the nature and manner of seeking information evinced from the instant cases as well as the approach of the Appellant during the hearing in seemingly not disclosing the complete facts of the cases filed by him, do not leave much scope to depart from the view taken by the Respondent.
Page 9 of 1211. In the facts of the instant cases, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility, and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.'
12. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention or relief to be ordered in the matter.
Page 10 of 1213. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date:10.11.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Sr. Manager (HR), Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Rajmahal Area Office, Dhankunda, PO -
Br. Simra, District - Godda, Jharkhand - 814165 2 Mohd Jameel Akhtar Annexure of Second Appeal(s) Page 11 of 12 Sl. No. Second Appeal No. 1 CIC/WCLTD/A/2024/123397 2 CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133859 3 CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133858 4 CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133857 5 CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133856 6 CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/133990 7 CIC/ECFLT/A/2024/129056 Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)