Central Information Commission
Urmila Devi vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited. on 28 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. CIC/NCCLD/A/2024/136314
Urmila Devi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd, Dhanbad, Jharkhand ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.08.2024 FA : 30.09.2024 SA : 06.11.2024
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 20.11.2025
Date of Decision:27.11.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
िनवेदन यह है िक म उिमला दे वी पित . महे राम िदनां क 06.03.2023 को संल आवेदन दी थी लेिकन पजी का अभी तक कोई उ र नहीं िमला।
1. कृपया मेरे आवेदन पर अब तक की गई कारवाई को दै िनक गित रपोट दीिजए जैसे मेरा आवेदन कब और िकस अिधकारी के पास प ंचा? यह उसके पास कब तक रहा और उसने इस दौरान इस संबंध म ा कदम उठाए। Page 1 of 3
2. मेरा काम अिधकतम िकतने िदनों म हो जाना चािहए था? कृपया उन अिधका रयों के नाम और पद बताए िज इस पर कायवाही करनी चािहए थी पर उ ोंने नहीं की?
3. अपना काम न करने और मृत पित के प ी को परे शान करने के आरोप म इन अिधका रयों के खलाफ ा कदम उठाए जायगे?
4. मेरा अब काम कब तक हो जाएगा?
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 30.09.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.11.2024.
4. The appellant remained absent despite the notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sonu Kumar, Deputy Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have replied to the appellant vide letter dated 23.08.2024. Written submission dated 17.11.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record.
Upon the Commission's query on how the sought information on action taken on appellant's letter dated 06.03.2023 does not fall under the RTI Act, the respondent failed to give any valid reply. Thereafter, the Commission directed the respondent to give revised reply to the appellant on point no.1 with respect to action taken on her complaint/letter, the respondent agreed for the same.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the appellant sought queries/clarifications in point no.2-4, part of point no.1 and the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant for the said points that the information sought is not within the scope of the RTI Act. However, the respondent failed to mention section 2(f) of the RTI Act for the said points and the respondent is advised to be cautious and quote relevant sections when posed with such points seeking queries/clarifications. Also, the Page 2 of 3 Commission finds that the sought information in point no.1 w.r.t action taken on the appellant's complaint/letter dated 06.03.2023 ought not to have been denied by the respondent. Hence, the respondent is directed to give a revised reply to the appellant for point no.1 incorporating the sought information only on action taken on her letter within 15 days of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 27.11.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Office of the General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, PB Area Office, Post - Kusunda, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand
- 828116 2 Urmila Devi Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)