Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000933. Case: Abhilasha Mathur, Ghaziabad Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad. Central Information Commission

Case NumberCase No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000933
Party NameAbhilasha Mathur, Ghaziabad Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad
JudgesSushma Singh, Information Commissioner
IssueRight to Information Act, 2005
Judgement DateSeptember 10, 2013
CourtCentral Information Commission


Sushma Singh, Information Commissioner

  1. Smt. Dr. Abhilasha Mathur hereinafter called the Appellant has filed the present appeal before the Commission dated "NIL" which was received in the commission on 19.10.2011 against the respondent namely, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad. The Appellant was represented by her Father, Shri Amresh Chandra Mathur who was present in the hearing and the Respondent ­CPIO­Shri Nitish Ranjan Chatteerjee [Dy. Manager (P)] along with FAA­ Shri A.K Sengupta (CGH­ Washerey) was also present in the hearing.

  2. The Appellant through her RTI application dated 2.5.2012 sought information relating to pending retirement dues and pension of the executives of the CCWO (formerly unit of HSL) who were transferred to the BCCL, Dhanbad on creation of CCWO unit in BCCL, Dhanbad. Appellant specifically asked 8 queries in her RTI application in respect of the said matter.

  3. CPIO vide letter No: WD/Pers­I (3)/RTI/2012­37 dated 2.6.2012 that "the sought information was sent to you vide letter no: WD/Pers­I (3)/RTI/2012/386­31 dated 23.5.2012 but it was undelivered due to wrong address. The reply received from Sr. Manager (Finance)/Secretary, HSLPF, Washerey Division, Dhanbad vide his letter No: WD/HSLPF/RTI/Abhilasha Mathur/12/56 dated 19.5.2012 is hereby enclosed along with enclosures for your kind information."

  4. Being aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a first appeal before the FAA over which an order has been passed by the FAA vide order no: BCCL/AA/WD/2011/344 dated 26.6.2012 that "As Smt. Abhilasha Mathur, Appellant was not present during hearing, the matter was heard ex­parte and the appeal was disposed off with the observations/directions that the PIO, Washerey Division will provide/furnish the correct and desired information in correct format to the appellant within 15 days time."

  5. Being aggrieved with the reply of FAA, the appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission and sates...

To continue reading

Request your trial