Central Information Commission
Ms. Sushila Bai vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 8 April, 2026
CIC/SAIL1/C/2024/137144
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SAIL1/C/2024/137144
Ms. Sushila Bai ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Steel Authority of India
Ltd, Durg, Chhatisgarh ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 09.08.2024 FA : Not on record Complaint : 28.10.2024
CPIO : 10.08.2024 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 07.04.2026
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) कुटे र माइ गैरतलाई के अंतगत ाम मड़वा ह ा मड़वा तहसील िवजयराघवगढ़ िजला कटनी म. . पूव एवं वतमान के िकसानों की अिध हण भूिम की सूची एवं िदये गये िकसानों को लाभ भौितक एवं िव ीय एवं अ लाभ की मािणत स ित ।Page 1 of 6
CIC/SAIL1/C/2024/137144
(ii) कुटे र माइ गैरतलाई के िकसानों एवं कुटे र माइ के िकये गये अनुबंध प की मािणत स ित ।
(iii) िदनां क 28/04/2025 कायालय कले र महोदय कटनी आनलाइन आवेदन मांक 188020 एवं जनिशकायत मां क 37 एस.डी.एम. महोदय िव.गढ़ आवेिदका सुशीला बाई के आवेदन म िकये गये िनणय स ित चाही गई है ।
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"आपने आवेदन प के साथ आवेदन शु के प म दस पये का Court Fees. संल कर ेिषत िकया है।
सूिचत िकया जाता है िक िभलाई इ ात संयं म सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम के अंतगत आवेदन शु पए 10/- जन सूचना अिधकारी सेल, बी.एस.पी. के प म दे य भारतीय पो ल आडर या िडमां ड डा /बकस चेक के मा म से ीकार िकया जाता है। अतः मूल आवेदन वापस िकया जाता है।
उपरो ानुसार मूल आवेदन के साथ उपरो मा म से आवेदन शु जमा कराव तािक आवेदन पर आगे कायवाही की जा सके।"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 28.10.2024.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Ms. A. Rajani, GM(HR)/CPIO, Shri Arun Saroj, Sr. Manager (HR)- Katni- participated in the hearing.
4. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Complainant. Shri Arun Saroj, Sr. Manager Page 2 of 6 CIC/SAIL1/C/2024/137144 (HR), stated that the case of the Complainant relates to the payment of compensation in reference to land acquisition. He averred that the compensation amount has been already paid to the Complainant. A written submission has been received from the :
Ms. A. Rajani, GM(HR)/CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
"..RTI application received on : 09.08.2024 (Annexure-1) Information given by PIO : Application was returned vide No. ज.सू.अिध/24/14686/01, िदनांक 10.08.2024 due to non payment of application fees in prescribed manner. (Annexure-2).
RTI application received with fees on : 07.09.2024 (Annexure-3) The same above mentioned application was submitted again by the applicant along with prescribed Rs. 10/- DD 640066 dated 27.08.2024 as per RTI Act, 2005.
Information given by PIO : Reply was given vide No. ज.सू.अिध/24/14730/02, िदनांक 11.10.2024 (Annexure-4).
1stAppeal received on : No appeal was received at RTI Office.
Appeal disposed of by First Appellate Authority Our submission on the second appeal is as following:
The reply to the applicant's RTI application dated (07.09.2024 has been replied vide No. ज.सू . अिध/24/14730/02, िदनांक 11.10.2024 (Annexure-4).. as under:
1) सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005, के अंतगत ीमती सुशीलाबाई, ारा वांिछत जानकारी स पूण ामः मड़वा के भू वािमय के बारे म है, िजसमे भूिम अिध ण े एवं मू य का िविवरण है। सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 धारा 8 (e) एवं 8(j) के तहत जानकारी ि गत होने के कारण नह दी जा सकती है।Page 3 of 6
CIC/SAIL1/C/2024/137144 पर तु खाता सं या 237, े 1.327 हे टेयर है, का िविवरण सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम के आवेदक से स बंिधत है, िजसका िविवरण िनमानुसार है:
ामः मड़वा, लाट नंबर: 237, े 1.327 हे टेयर, भूिम वामी रामिवशाल, िपताः रामिधन क भूिम टील अथॉ रटी ऑफ़ इंिडया ारा अिध िहत है (स दभ:
के स नंबर: 13A/67/71-72 दनांक 23/08/1973 MPLRC 1959, 247(4)) के अंतगत ।
उ के स क सभी कायवाही कर शासनादेश अनुसार भू वामी को स पूण देनदारी दी जा चुक है।
2) चूं क भूिम अिध ण MPLRC 1959 एवं LAA 1894 के तहत म य देश शासन ारा कु टे र लाइम टोन माइंस गैरतलाई को माइ नंग लीज पर दया गया है अतः उ जानकारी म य देश शासन म िनिहत है।
3) इस स दभ क जानकारी हमारे कायालय से स बंिधत नह है।"
Decision:
5. Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
6. Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Page 4 of 6 CIC/SAIL1/C/2024/137144 Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
7. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
8. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Page 5 of 6CIC/SAIL1/C/2024/137144 Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमे श) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO General Manager-(Pers. & CPIO), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant, Room No.-250, 2nd Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District-Durg-490001 (Chhattisgarh).
2 Ms. Sushila Bai Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)