Shri Avishek Kumar, ... v. Cpio, Bharat Coking ..., Central Information Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

F. No. CIC/YA/A/2016/000269 CIC/YA/A/2015/002162

Attorney(S)

Judges

Yashovardhan Azad, IC

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns two separate RTI appeals filed by the appellant seeking information related to the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Policy of Open Cast Projects operating near residential areas. In the first case, the appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.06.2015 requesting CSR-related information. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) returned the application citing a defect in the postal order payment. The appellant filed a first appeal, and subsequently approached the Commission due to delay in receiving information, which was eventually provided after approximately two and a half months and following the first appeal hearing.

In the second case, the appellant submitted an RTI application dated 04.07.2015 seeking information on five points related to CSR actions benefiting areas surrounding the Chandan Open Cast Project (OCP). Although the appellant filed a first appeal, it remained unheard, prompting the appellant to approach the Commission.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the delay in providing information under the RTI Act was justified and whether it caused any deprivation to the appellant.
Whether the information sought by the appellant was sufficiently clear and categorical to warrant disclosure.
Whether the Commission should direct any further action in light of the information already furnished to the appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant contended that information was provided with an undue delay of approximately two and a half months in the first case.
The appellant indicated dissatisfaction with the delay despite eventual receipt of the information.
In the second case, the appellant acknowledged receipt of information and expressed satisfaction to that extent.

CPIO's Arguments

The CPIO explained the delay in the first case by stating that the postal order submitted with the RTI application was not in order, which caused the initial return of the application.
The CPIO noted ambiguity in the appellant’s query, stating it was not clear what exact information was sought.
The CPIO informed that the entire CSR policy was already uploaded on the website and that this was communicated to the appellant.
The CPIO tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in furnishing information.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission analyzed the facts and found that the information available on record had already been provided to the appellant in both cases. It noted that the appellant’s initial query was ambiguously worded and lacked specificity, which contributed to the delay and difficulty in furnishing the information. The Commission observed that the delay was not intentional and did not cause any deprivation to the appellant. Given these circumstances, the Commission concluded that no further action was warranted.

Holding and Implications

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

The direct effect of this decision is the closure of the appeals on the basis that the information sought was provided, and the delay was neither deliberate nor prejudicial to the appellant. The Commission did not impose any penalty or direct remedial action, nor did it establish any new precedent through this ruling.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Shri Avishek Kumar, Jharkhand /Complainant v. Cpio, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Jharkhand Through: Shri Akhileswar Ram Pio Shri A.K. Singh .

Yashovardhan Azad, IC:—

Information sought and background of the case:

The appellant vide RTI application dated 23.06.2015 sought information regarding Corporate Social Responsibility Policy of an Open Cast Project operating near a residential area. CPIO vide letter dated 25.06.2015 stated as under:

“On perusal of your above application it has been found that the Postal Order enclosed is not in order. It should be in favour of BCCL payable at Dhanbad.”

The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 18.08.2015 called upon the appellant for hearing. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

The appellant states that the information sought has been received. However, he draws the attention of the Commission towards the delay in receipt of information and states that information was provided after 2 ½ months, that too after appeal to the First Appellant Authority after the stipulated time for reply was over. The CPIO states that since the postal order attached to the RTI application was not in order, the RTI application was returned. The same was received just 2-3 days before the FAA hearing. He further states that it was not clear as to what exact information is sought by the appellant. The entire CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) has been uploaded at the website and the same has been intimated to the appellant. The CPIO tenders unconditional apology for the delay caused in furnishing information.

DECISION

After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that information as available on record has already been provided to the appellant. It is also noted that the query itself was ambiguously worded and is not categorical in seeking any particular information. The delay is neither intentional nor has it caused any deprivation to the appellant. No further action is therefore warranted in this case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

CIC/YA/A/2015/002162

Information sought and background of the case:

The appellant vide RTI application dated 04.07.2015 sought information under 5 points regarding action taken related to Corporate Social Responsibility Policy for the benefit of the areas surrounding the Chandan OCP.

CPIO replied on 16.07.2015 The appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.