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 appellant filed two separate RTI applications seeking information related to the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies of Open Cast Projects near residential areas. In the first instance, dated 23.06.2015, the appellant's RTI application was initially rejected due to an improperly addressed postal order. After the appellant filed a first appeal, the information was eventually provided after a delay of approximately two and a half months, prompting the appellant to approach the Commission due to the delay and ambiguity in the information sought.

In the second instance, dated 04.07.2015, the appellant sought information on five points concerning CSR actions for the benefit of areas surrounding the Chandan OCP. The CPIO responded on 16.07.2015, but the first appeal remained unheard, leading the appellant to approach the Commission again.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the delay in furnishing information under the RTI Act was justified and whether it caused any deprivation to the appellant.
Whether the information sought was sufficiently clear and categorical to warrant disclosure.
Whether the information as available on record had been adequately provided to the appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant contended that the information was provided only after a delay of two and a half months, which was after the stipulated time and only following an appeal to the First Appellate Authority.
The appellant indicated dissatisfaction with the delay and sought timely and clear information regarding CSR policies.
In the second case, the appellant stated that the information sought had been received and expressed satisfaction to that extent.

CPIO's Arguments

The CPIO explained that the initial RTI application was returned because the postal order was not in proper order and was only received shortly before the FAA hearing.
The CPIO claimed that the information sought was not clearly specified and that the entire CSR policy was already uploaded on the website, which had been communicated to the appellant.
The CPIO tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in furnishing the 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 RTI query was ambiguously worded and lacked specificity, which contributed to the delay. The delay in providing information was determined to be non-intentional and did not result in any deprivation to the appellant. Consequently, the Commission found no grounds for further action. In the second case, since the appellant received the information and expressed satisfaction, the Commission concluded the matter accordingly.

Holding and Implications

The appeals were disposed of.

The Commission’s decision directly resolves the appellant’s grievances by confirming that the information was provided and that the delay was not intentional nor prejudicial. No new legal precedent was established, and no further action was deemed necessary.

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.