Central Information Commission
C A Tiruvengadam Kannan vs Coal India Limited on 9 January, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/002869
Date of Hearing : 05.01.2017
Date of Decision : 05.01.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Shri C A Tiruvengadam Kannan,
Kolkata
Respondent : CPIO, Coal India Limited, Kolkata
Through: Mr. Vijay Swaroop, Ms.
Susmita Sengupta
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : --
PIO replied on : 26.08.2015
First Appeal filed on : --
First Appellate Order on : 02.11.2015
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 02.11.2015
Information soughtand background of the case:
The appellant vide RTI application sought the following information from Coal India Ltd.:
"Whether a Chartered Accountant firm can concurrently be the system/transaction auditor of M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. for the financial year 2015-16 and physical verifiers and certifiers of closing coal stock as on 31.03.2015 ..."
CPIO vide letter dated 26.08.2015 replied as under:
" As per Coal India Limited, regarding invitation of expression of interest for empanelment of Chartered/Cost Firm for conducting internal audit the laid down norms may be read as follows:
The Audit Firm which has been appointed by CIL or any of its subsidiaries as Internal Auditors shall not be considered for any other Audit job, including Internal Audit (excluding Tax Audit, VAT audit and any other statutory certificates related to Audit requirements) by an subsidiary/CIL. In case the Audit Firm already appointed as Internal Auditor in CIL or its subsidiary, the earlier appointment of such firm as Internal Auditor shall be withdrawn and fresh appointment for the panel shall be considered".
The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 02.11.2015 disposed of appeal stating as under:
"Since the respondents are firm on the information furnished and complete document is available in website of CIL and also as further clarified in the proceedings, it is felt that the respondents have nothing to disclose in the issue."
Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing Sh. Sunil Singh represented the appellant and stated that the appellant had applied on 06.03.2015 for the position of Physical Verifier and Certifier of closing stock of coal as on 31.03.2015 in response to a tender of Coal India Ltd. alongwith Earnest Money Deposit [EMD] of Rs. 20,000/-. Subsequently his appointment with Mahanadi Coalfields got renewed by appointment letter dated 31.03.2015 and he communicated the same to Coal India Ltd. withdrawing his application for the position of Verifier and Certifier of closing stock. In the process his EMD was forfeited. Aggrieved by the policy he raised the queries vide his RTI application. The Respondent stated that they have provided information as available on records despite which the appellant has subsequently raised personal grievances. Upon being probed by the Commission about the germane issue, the Respondent simply reiterates the same contention without providing any the reason for non response to a basic and simple query viz.:
"Whether a Chartered Accountant firm can concurrently be the system/transaction auditor of M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. for the financial year 2015-16 and physical verifiers and certifiers of closing coal stock as on 31.03.2015 ..."
The technical and administrative heads present for the hearing on behalf of the Respondent were unable to establish any cogent reply despite repeated opportunities granted to explain the case. However after much deliberation the Respondent finally stated that the same auditor/CA firm is not permitted to concurrently carry out two separate jobs, that of a physical verifier of stock and of a system/transaction auditor.
Decision:
After hearing both parties and perusal of record, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondent has unnecessarily wasted time and efforts over complicating a simple response which came forth during the hearing. The Respondent is directed to provide a revised response to the appellant who has been adversely affected by the forfeiture of the EMD amount of Rs. 20,000/-and has every right to enquire about the policy of the Respondent. The Revised response should be sent to the Appellant within a week of receipt of this order, with a copy mandatorily marked to the Commission.
The Commission further observes that the lack of clarity, knowledge and inability of the officers handling RTI matters in the Respondent organisation and irrelevant responses from them lead to piling up of RTI cases. In the absence of lucidity and simplicity in approach, the entire purpose and spirit of the RTI regime is defeated. In view of such state of affairs, the Commission finds it pertinent that a copy of this order be marked to the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. such that remedial measures are adopted to simplify the communication network, particularly of the officers handling RTI related matters towards increasing transparency and clarity.
The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
(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 Copy to:-
CPIO: First Appellate Authority under RTI General Manager-Pers., Chief General Manager, Coal Coal India Limited, Coal India Limited, Coal Bhawan Bhawan Premises No.-04, MAR, Premises No.04, MAR, Plot Plot No. -AF-III, Action No.-AF-III, Action Area-1A Arca-1A, New Town Rajarhat, New Town Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156 (W.B.) Kolkata-700156 (W.B.) C A TIRUVENGADAM KANNAN NETAJI SUBHASH VILLA FLAT 3C 3RD FLOOR 18 KARUNAMOYEE ROAD KOLKATA-700082