Central Information Commission
Shyju Thomas vs Central Coalfield Limited on 10 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
BABA GANGNTH MARG, MUNIRKA
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/CCFLT/A/2017/192688
Date of Hearing : 07.05.2018
Date of Decision (Interim) : 07.05.2018
Date of Final Decision : 09.08.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Shyju Thomas
Respondent : PIO,
General Manager-(Production)/HQ.,
Central Coalfields Limited,
Dharbhanga House
Through: Uday Shankar - CPIO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : Nil
PIO replied on : 04.08.2015 & 09.03.2016
First Appeal filed on : 21.03.2016
First Appellate Order on : - -
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 21.12.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated Nil, the appellant sought detailed plan regarding Environmental Management Plan of Magadh OCP in Chatra.
General Manager(Production)/PIO, CCl, Ranchi vide letter dated 04.08.2015 states as follows:-
"This is to inform that we have received letter of Dy. General Manager, CCL, Ranchi, wherein he has stated that 800 pages of reply is available with them. Hence appellant is requested to kindly deposit Rs. 1600/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred & only) @ Rs. 2/- per page either by DD/IPO/Bank draft in favour of CCL, payable at Ranchi. On receipt of the same the required information shall be provided to appellant."
General Manager(Production)/PIO, CCL, Ranchi vide letter dated 09.03.2016 states as follows:-
"Appellant's representation dt. 02.02.2016 under RTI Act-2005 regarding supply of information against Rs. 1600/- deposited by appellant (for cost of copy of information). In this regard this is to inform that we have received 800 pages reply from HOD (F&E), CCL, Ranchi on 19.02.2016. On examination of the reply it is found that the information provided is restricted for company use only & it is not to be communicated either directly or indirectly to the press or any persons not holding an official position in the CIL/Government (Copy enclosed). Accordingly we process to refund Rs. 1600/- to appellant vide our note sheet (Copy enclosed). We will refund appellant's deposited amount through bank draft or/a/c payee cheque."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 21.03.2016. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing:
Appellant seeks the information in larger public interest and also because he is an inhabitant of the locality. He further emphasises that since the actions of the Respondent Company are likely to impact the environment around, hence the Company as a part of Corporate Social Responsibility should share such information with the local residents of the area and take their feedback. Instead the Respondent vide PIO reply dated 04.03.2016 sought deposit of Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred and now during the hearing are denying the information.
Respondent has stated that the Environmental Management Plan of Magadh OCP in Chatra are prepared by CMDI and such information is exempt from disclosure as the document is meant for internal circulation only. At a query from the Commission, as to which provision of the RTI Act is attracted in preventing disclosure of the Environmental Management Plan, the PIO is unable to make any cogent submissions.
Interim Decision: 07.05.2018 In view of the deliberations above, it is pertinent to examine the plea of the Respondent in details and in order to do so better clarification from the respondent in support of their contention is essential. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to submit their written arguments citing appropriate provision of the RTI Act, seeking exemption from disclosure of the Environment Management Plan. The submission from the Respondent must reach the Commission by or within 20.06.2018, with an advance copy served upon the appellant.
Order reserved.
Final Decision: 07.08.2018 Pursuant to the aforementioned directions of the Commission, the Respondent/General Manager/TS to D(T)(P&P)/CPIO submitted a written note dated 19.06.2018, relevant extract whereof are as follows:
".....1. That by an RTI application dated nil bearing receipt no. 84 dated 07.07.2015 of Sri Shyju Thomas (appellant) requested for EMP (Environment Management Plan) of Magadh OCP (detailed Plan) in Chatra of M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi. (Copy of the RTI application dated nil is attached as Annexure "A")
2. That for furnishing the desired information/documents, a letter was written to the General Manager (Forest & Envirnment), CCL, Ranchi in July 2015 by the then PIO, CCL, Ranchi.
3. That as the desired document (EMP of Magadh OCP) was voluminous in nature (about 800 pages), the appellant was requested to deposit Rs. 1600/-@ Rs. 2/--per page) in favour of CCL.
4. That the appellant deposited Rs. 1600/- in favour of CCL vide DD No. 069480 dated 28.08.2015.
5. That on examination, it appeared to the then PIO, CCL, Ranchi that the information/document to be provided to the appellant was restricted for company use only & it was not to be communicated either directly or indirectly to any person not holding an official position in CIL/Government.
6. That the appellant was informed accordingly by the then PIO, CCL, Ranchi in March 2016, along with information that the deposited amount of Rs. M1600/- would be refunded to the appellant by CCL.
7. That the applicant/appellant had not mentioned any larger public interest in his original RTI application. (enclosed as Annexure A).
8. That the undersigned took the charge of PIO, CCL, Ranchi in March, 2017.
9. That the matter was again examined thoroughly by the undersigned in the light of the hearing of the Case before Hon'ble Information Commissioner, CIC, New Delhi on 07.05.2018.
10. That after examination by the undersigned, it revealed that the desired information/document i.e. EMP of Magadh OCP could be given to the applicant under RTI Act-2005.
11. That the matter is now being pursued vigorously for the earliest possible submission of EMP of Magadh OCP to the Applicant.
12. That the copy of this submission is also being sent to the applicant/appellant Shri Shyju Thomas.
The above contention of the Respondent reveals that the Respondent has reviewed its decision of furnishing information to the appellant, in view of the Commission's observations noted in the order dated 07.05.2018.
In view of these new developments, the Commission directs the Respondent to expedite the process of supplying of information to the appellant and submit an Action Taken Report within 15.09.2018.
The appeal is thus disposed of with the above directions.
(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