Central Information Commission
Dr.Syeeda Farhana Yasmin vs Coal India Limited on 31 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.Nos.CIC/AT/A/2009/000444 &
CIC/AT/C/2009/000419
Dated, the 31st July, 2009.
Appellant : Dr.Syeeda Farhana Yasmin
Respondents : Coal India Limited
Matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing on 20.07.2009. Appellant was present at NIC Studio, Guwahati. Respondents were present at NIC Studio, Kolkata. Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Appellant stated during the hearing that her present second-appeal was limited to two queries in her RTI-application dated 18.11.2008 namely queries at Sl.Nos.1 and 4. These read as follows:-
"1. Kindly enclose the certified photocopy {u/s 2(j)(ii) of RTI Act'05} of the Vigilance Clearance Certificate of the present Chief General Manager, NEC/CIL Assam, which was received in the Personnel Division of Coal India Ltd Headquarters, prior to his promotion from M2 to M3 vide CIL's Order No.CIL/C-5A(ii)/50925/786 dated 19th Sept 2007.
4. Kindly enclose the certified photocopy of the telephonic transcripts, vide which the superior official was officially informed by the then General Manager, NEC/CIL, regarding his arrest by the Margherita Police on 28.03.2007 (as per CIL Executive's Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules 1978, amended upto 2000) as mentioned vide letter No.NEC/GHY /RTI-05/08/355 dated 26.07.2008 Clause 2."
3. I see no reason why the information at query at Sl.No.1 be withheld from the appellant since it is about the vigilance clearance for an officer, which is the key clearance for the officer's promotion and appointment. A citizen is entitled to know whether these appointments were made after proper vigilance clearance or these were not.
AT-31072009-06.doc Page 1 of 3
4. It is accordingly directed that this item of information be disclosed to the appellant after applying the severability provision of Section 10(1) to exclude from the body of the text, such information which may be exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. This may be done within two weeks of the receipt of this order by the CPIO.
5. The query at Sl.No.4 of the RTI-application relates to request for the telephonic transcript between two officials of Coal India Limited. It was the case of the respondents that no such transcripts were either created, or maintained by them. Appellant demanded that the CPIO should transfer her application, under Section 6(3), to the Department of Telecom, who would be then required to process the request for telephonic transcripts.
6. I've seen the submission of the appellant and I do not agree with it. The CPIO very clearly does not have copies of the transcript. As such, no responsibility can be cast on him to transmit it to the appellant. CPIO is not supposed to know whether or not the Department of Telecom maintains transcripts of conversation between those using telephones. He is, therefore, not expected to indulge in guesswork about where information might have been located to take action under Section 6(3) of the Act.
7. It is, therefore, held that the action of the CPIO was entirely justified.
8. Respondents also pointed out that the appellant was dismissed by Coal India Limited in the year 2004. Ever since, she has pursued her vendetta against Shri Anil Kumar Bora, Chief General Manager, who she apparently holds responsible for the action which led to her dismissal from service. Respondents demanded that motivated petitioning by petitioners such as this must not be encouraged lest it affected the morale of the officers of the public authority.
9. While it is so, it is also to be understood that what the Commission is deciding is not the entitlement of a petitioner to receive information, but the disclosability of information. If the information is found to be disclosable within the provisions of the Act, it is not possible to withhold it just because the person seeking may be actuated by any ulterior motive.
10. However, the concerns of the respondents have been noted.
AT-31072009-06.doc Page 2 of 3
11. Appeal accordingly disposed of.
Complaint No.CIC/AT/C/2009/000419:
12. Appellant, in her second-appeal, has also urged the Commission to take action under Section 20 of the RTI Act against the respondents "for not providing information / documents and also for providing incomplete information."
13. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, I believe that there is no need to start "Section 20 proceeding" against the respondents as there was no willful, wanton or mala-fide denial of information.
14. Complaint closed at the Commission's level.
15. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-31072009-06.doc Page 3 of 3