Central Information Commission
Mrsunil Verma vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 31 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi110066
F. No.CIC/RM/A/2014/002290YA
Date of Hearing : 31.05.2016
Date of Decision : 31.05.2016
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Sunil Verma, Korba (C.G.)
Respondent : Bhilai Steel PlantSAIL, Durg(C.G.)
Through: Mr. S K Acharya, CPIO
Mr. S. Roychowdhary, FAA
Ms. Sushma Saxena
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.05.2013.
PIO replied on : 02.07.2013.
First Appeal filed on : 23.07.2013.
First Appellate Order on : 27.08.2013.
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 18.02.2014.
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 16.05.2013, the applicant has sought information against fourteen points relating to generation of CI scrap for last ten years; procedure of sale/consumption quantity wise and year; stock of rejected/broken mould, bottom stool,; monthwise lifting details of item from starting to dispatch by the party; details of purchaser presently lifting CI scrap from NSBY etc. from the Bhilai Steel Plant.
The CPIO vide response dated 02/07/2013 furnished some information which was found inadequate by the Appellant. Hence he filed a First Appeal dated 23.07.2013 which was disposed of vide FAA's response dated 27.08.2013 upholding the decision of the CPIO. The aggrieved appellant thus filed the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, both the parties appeared through video conferencing. The Commission sought to know from the appellant as to what were the insufficiencies in the information provided by the Respondent/CPIO. But the Appellant present was not aware about the insufficiency neither could he provide an accurate response. The Respondents have submitted during the hearing that information as available with them have been duly supplied. The Respondents have further stated that no information about the nomenclature of CI scrap is maintained in their records. In response to the Appellant's allegation about incomplete information furnished against points 7, 8 and 9, it has been explained that as per their Records Retention Schedule, the information beyond last five years is not available in their records.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and perusal of record, the Commission observes that objections of the Appellant are mainly based on incompleteness of information against the points 2,7,8,9 etc.. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to supply a copy of the Records Retention Schedule to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. Against the query number 1, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish a report of the all scraps generated by the Respondent in general, since admittedly no separate record of CI scrap is maintained. It is noted by the Commission that the Appellant himself is clueless about exact insufficiency in the information provided to him and merely repeated that the information supplied to him was not complete without explaining the incompleteness therein. Another person appeared with the appellant who seemed to prod him during the hearing to make the same submissions. It appears to be proxy litigation and does not require any further orders.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(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 Copy to: