Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Pradeep Kumar Mahato vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 5 December, 2019

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



अपील संख्या / Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2017/195198


 Pradeep Kumar Mahato                                       ... अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant


                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


 CPIO, Chasnala Colliery, SAIL,                                      ...प्रनर्वािीगण
 Dhanbad                                                             /Respondents


                                    ORDER

1. The Commission, vide order dated 12.04.2018, directed the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide correct and complete information on point nos. 2 (total number of labourers who had received the insurance claims pay-out), and 7 of the RTI application to the appellant. The respondent was further directed to obtain the information sought vide point nos. 6 and 8 of the RTI application from Bharat Coking Coal Limited and furnish the same to the appellant.

2. The appellant filed a complaint dated 26.05.2018 regarding non-compliance of the Commission's above-mentioned order.

3. The comments of the respondent on the appellant's non-compliance petition were called vide Commission's letter dated 08.02.2019.

4. The respondent, vide letter dated 11.03.2019, informed the Commission that in compliance with the order of the Commission dated 12.04.2018, due information has been provided to the appellant vide letters dated 30.04.2018 and 04.03.2019.

Hearing on 03.12.2019:

5. The appellant Shri Pradeep Kumar Mahato, and the respondent Shri A.N.G.Hembrom, AGM(Estate) and CPIO, Chasnala Colliery, SAIL, Dhanbad attended the hearing through video conferencing.

6. The appellant submitted that the Commission vide order dated 12.04.2018, directed the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide correct and complete information on point nos. 2, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI application to the appellant. However, the requisite information as received by the respondent is false and incomplete. The appellant submitted that the information provided by the respondent vide letter dated 30.04.2018 with respect to point no. 2 of the RTI application wherein the information sought was regarding the total number of labourers who had received the insurance claims pay-out, is incomplete. Further, with regards to the information sought under point no. 6 regarding identification of the areas where waste (OB) has been dumped, the respondent vide letter dated 04.03.2019 stated that it is not possible to identify the said areas. The appellant submitted that the respondent was duly notified by BCCL via letters and maps as to the areas where the OB has to be dumped. Therefore, the respondent should be able to locate the said areas easily. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for.

7. The respondent submitted that the Commission's order dated 12.04.2018 has been duly complied with by the respondent. The respondent further submitted that as directed by the Commission, information, as per the available records, sought under point nos. 2, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI application has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 30.04.2018. Further clarification was also provided to the appellant vide letter dated 04.03.2018. With respect to the information sought under point no. 2, the respondent submitted that the labourers are employed on contract basis by the contractor who is responsible for the pay-outs of their insurance claims. Thus, this information is not available with the respondent. Further, with respect to the information sought under point no. 6, the respondent submitted that the appellant was invited for inspection of the site vide letter dated 30.04.2018. However, the appellant refused to inspect and later a clarification was provided vide letter dated 04.03.2019 that currently it is not possible to identify the areas where wastes (OB) has been dumped.

Decision:

8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, a public authority can access/obtain information from a private body:

2(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;

9. The Commission further observes that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Poorna Prajna Public School vs. Central Information Commission & ors.

[WP (C) No. 7265 of 2007, decision dated 25.09.2009] had observed as follows:

"13...... Therefore, section 2(f) of the RTI Act requires examination of the relevant statute or law, as broadly understood, under which a public authority can access information from a private body. If law or statute permits and allows the public authority to access the information relating to a private body, it will fall within the four corners of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act...."

10. In view of the above, the Commission observes that the respondent should have obtained information from the concerned contractor and furnished it to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, grants one more opportunity to the respondent to comply with the directions issued by the Commission's order dated 12.04.2018 and provide correct and complete information to the appellant with respect to point nos. 2 and 6 of the RTI application, after obtaining the same from the Contractor and BCCL respectively. The above order of the Commission shall be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

11. With the above observations, the non-compliance complaint is disposed of.

12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 03.12.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Collieries Division, Chasnalla Colliery Complex, PO - Chasnalla, Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828135

2. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) General Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Collieries Division, 2nd Floor, 97, Park Street, Kolkata - 700016

3. Shri Pradeep Kumar Mahato Page 5 of 5