Central Information Commission
Dr.Vivek Kumar Tripathi vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 5 March, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000559/BS/1978
05 March 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi
Vill & PO: Ayana
Dist: Auraiya,
Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : CPIO & Dy. Director General of Mines Safety
M/o Labour & Employment
Directorate General of Mines Safety
Northern Zone, Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh
RTI application filed on : 28/11/2011
PIO replied on : 13/01/2012
First appeal filed on : 11/01/2012
First Appellate Authority order : No order passed.
Second Appeal received on : 02/03/2012
Information sought:
The appellant had sought following information related to a reply which he had received vide letter no. RTI/2011/2819 on 31/10/2011 in response to his earlier RTI application dated 22/09/2011:
1- In the above said reply at Sr. 02 you have mentioned that no officer has inspected the Modi's Mine hence kindly clarify under whose orders Mr. A.K. Sinha and Mr. A.K. Porwal had inspected the mine and what action had been taken against them provide a copy of order.
2- Provide reasons as to why action was taken by Ghaziabad Distinct although Jhalawad District comes under Gwalior region.
3- Provide a copy of rule which permits entry into restricted area? 4- Provide copy of map submitted by Mines Manager Mr. Dattatrey on 21/09/2011 in which the opened restricted area is marked.
5- Whether a Surveyor also accompanied Mr. A.K. Sinha and Mr. A.K. Porwal when inspection was conducted at Modi Mines and whether the maps of Mines were certified on the spot, if yes then provide a copy of report the surveyor has prepared, copy of field book and copy of amended map.
6- Whether the owners of the Mines in Jhalawad to remove the restriction should approach in Ghaziabad Office?
7- If Mr. Modi has given any letter/application for removing the restriction then provide details of action taken by the department on this? Also provide reasons as to why his request for removing the restriction was not sent to Gwalior office.Page 1 of 2
8- Whether Modi's Mines was not in condition to remove the restriction completely?
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and misleading information has been provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. D.K. Saxena CPIO through TC: 0145 2425537/09460594287 The CPIO stated that from a bare reading of the appellant's RTI application dated 28/11/2011 it is apparent that most of the queries are interrogatory in nature/contesting the action of the department which is not covered under the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He further stated that the relevant file notings relating to query 01 and copy of plan/map requested in query 04 & 05 will be furnished and added that in case the appellant needs any further information he is free to inspect the relevant records and take whatever documents/information he needs. The appellant is not present for making his submissions/contesting the facts Decision notice:
As stated by the CPIO he should provide copy(s) of file notings and the plan/map to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case the appellant needs any further information the CPIO should permit him to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application dated 28/11/2011 and also take photocopies/extracts there from, free of cost, up to 25 pages.
The CPIO, under the RTI Act, is required to furnish the information/documents as available on records; however, eliciting answers to queries, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. The Petitioners right extends only to seek information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record etc. or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM) Page 2 of 2