Apka Adhikar

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

The Petitioner is employed with South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) since the year 1991. He is presently working as Chief Laboratory Technician. The petitioner by way of filing the present Writ Petition under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays this Hon’ble Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction against the respondents herein, thereby directing the respondents to give the information sought by the petitioner vide his application dated 12.12.2005 under Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and implement the order dated 27.03.2006 and 12.05.2006, and directions contained in letters dated 01.08.2006, 14.11.2006 and 02.01.2007 issued by respondent no 1 and also impose monetary penalty on respondent no 2 under section 20(1) of RTI Act.

The petitioner filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2005 seeking a copy of rules relying upon which Mrs. Mridula Abraham, who was subordinate to the petitioner was given an out of turn promotion and was promoted earlier than the petitioner. However, rules were not given but the petitioner has been transferred from his postings as a penalty for filing applications under Right to Information (RTI). It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was, in his 16 years of service, never transferred until he filed his first RTI application dated 29.11.2005.

The Petitioner is left with no other option but to approach this Hon’ble Court since neither was complete information provided by respondent no 2 nor did respondent no 1 direct respondent no 2 to give the information vide its order dated 12.12.2006 and also because respondent no 5 failed to initiate action against respondent no 2 despite repeated reminders sent by respondent no 1.

13.10.2005 : During the video conferencing done by the State Government to listen to public grievances on 13.10.2005, the petitioner brings it to the notice of the State Government that his junior Mrs Mridula Abraham has been placed higher in seniority and thus promoted before him.

18.10.2005 : Additional Collector (Korba), Chattisgarh vide letter no 11231 informed Chief General Manager, SECL, Gevra Region, Korba that Shri C. Juster was asked to provide written information about the changed rules to Mr. Mujibur Rehman and his Office within three days. But the same was still awaited. The Additional Collector (Korba) further directed that Shri Mujibur Rehman may inevitably be provided with the copy of the written circular within three days

29.11.2005 : Petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005) seeking information on 7 points

03.12.2005 : Vide letter no. SECL/BSP/PIO/2005/29 respondent no. 2 dismissed the application under RTI Act, 2005 of the petitioner stating that the application filed by the petitioner was based on four separate issues therefore the petitioner should file four separate applications for each of the issues along with the application fees of Rs. 10.00 for each of them.

12.12.2005 : Petitioner filed nine separate applications, seeking one information through one application, before respondent no. 2 dealing with the same issues that were mentioned in his earlier application dated 29.11.2005. The petitioner paid separate application fees for each of the nine applications thereby depositing a total of Rs. 90.00. One of the information that was asked by the petitioner was a copy of amended rules of 2003 under which Mrs Mridula Abraham was promoted as Chief Laboratory Technician in Nehru Centenary Hospital

06.01.2006 : Petitioner received information with respect to only one of his RTI applications dated 12.12.2005 in which the petitioner had sought copy of transfer order of Mr. Rajnish Peter, Korba issued from SECL Head Quarter, Manpower Department.

13.01.2006 : Petitioner filed first appeal before respondent no. 3 stating that out of nine applications under the RTI Act, 2005 filed by him on 12.12.2005, he has received only one information with respect to which he had deposited Rs. 4.00 to obtain the Photostat copy of the same.

23.01.2006 : Vide letter no. SECL/BSP/PIO/2005/328 respondent no. 2 provided some information to the petitioner, however, respondent no. 2 provided incomplete, misleading and false information with respect to his applications seeking copy of the revised circular of CIL, 2003 under which Mrs. Mridula Abraham was promoted at Nehru Shatabdi Hospital in the year 2005 and copy of rules as mentioned in letter no. SECL/BSP/ADMN/2005/1838-43 dated 30.05. 2005.

02.02.2006 : Petitioner filed complaint before respondent no. 3 stating that he had received incomplete, misleading and false information with respect to his applications seeking copy of the revised circular under which Mrs. Mridula Abraham was promoted at Nehru Shatabdi Hospital in the year 2005 and copy of rules as mentioned in letter no. SECL/BSP/ADMN/2005/1838-43 dated 30.05.2005. Respondent no 2 did not provide Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings and promotion rules and seniority rules.

16.03.2006 : On not receiving any response from respondent no. 3 within 30 days, the petitioner filed second appeal along with complaint before respondent no. 1.

20.03.2006 : Respondent no 1 issued notice to respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 to appear in person on 27.03.2007.

27.03.2006 : Respondent no 1 directed respondent no 2 to provide complete information to the petitioner including Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings and promotion rules and seniority rules within 15 working days. Respondent no 1 also issued Show Cause Notice to respondent no. 2 asking as to why penalty proceedings under section 20 should not be initiated against him. Respondent no. 1 further ordered that a copy of its order be sent to Secretary Coal in the Government of India and to Department of Personnel & Training for their record and initiation of remedial action. Respondentr no 2 sent 12 page reply

10.04.2006 : Respondent no 2, after the order of respondent no 1 provided a para wise comments on all the information that was sought by the petitioner. Respondent no. 2, however, only provided first page of the DPC proceedings and rest of the documents were not provided. It is pertinent to mention here that in the reply respondent no 2 stated that there are no revised rules or any seniority list for the year 2003 where as in its earlier 12 page reply to the petitioner with respect to the same query, respondent no 2 had replied that the seniority list and promotion rules have been revised in the year 2004. It is also important to mention here that there are two vacancies in the department where the petitioner worked however in the earlier reply they had stated there were 2 vacancies.

21.04.2006 : Petitioner informed respondent no. 1 that despite the strict orders of respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 to provide all the documents to the petitioner, respondent no. 2 failed to comply with the order and did not provide a copy of seniority rule as mentioned in the letter no. SECL/BSP/ADMN/2005/1838-43 dated 30.05.2005 and also did not provide revised rule of CIL 2003 as mentioned in letter no. 11231 dated 18.10.2005.

12.05.2006 : Respondent no. 1 though accepted the fact that respondent no 2 did not provide complete information with respect to seniority and promotion rules yet respondent no. 1 failed to impose any penalty on respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 further directed South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) to publish information of all its employees, the established current practice for considering promotion on internet as provided under section 4 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Respondent no. 1 did not impose financial penalty on respondent no. 2 as this was the first case of it’s kind from the public authority.

01.08.2006 : Respondent no. 1 vide its letter no. CIC/ AT/A/2006/00040 recommended respondent no. 4 to initiate action against respondent no. 2 as provided under section 20 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005.

02.11.2006 : Petitioner requested respondent no. 1 to initiate an enquiry into the victimization and harassment being done by SECL for use of RTI Act, 2005.

14.11.2006 : The Additional Secretary and Registrar of respondent no. 1 vide his letter No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00040 informed respondent no. 5 that respondent no 2 had given false information before respondent no. 1 and is thus guilty of perjury. Respondent no. 1 requested respondent no. 5 to ensure disciplinary action against respondent no. 2.

08.12.2006 : Petitioner wrote a letter in Urdu language to respondent no 1 stating that he has been victimized and some action be taken against the officials who are doing so. He further requested respondent no 1 to allow him compensation as his financial condition was very weak.

09.12.2006 : Respondent no 1 vide e-mail took cognizance of the letter of the petitioner.

02.01.2007 : Additional Secretary of respondent no 2, again asked respondent no 5 to ensure disciplinary action against respondent no 2. Respondent no 1 asked the concerned Joint Secretary of Respondent no 5 to appear before it on 17.01.2007 to explain what possible measures could be taken to stop harassment of the petitioner.

02.02.2007 : Additional Secretary of respondent no 1 informed the petitioner vide e-mail that in the hearing held on 17.01.2007 respondent no 5 was asked to submit report within one week, however, despite elapse of that one week, the report has not been submitted with respondent no 1.

03.02.2007 : Under secretary of respondent no 1 informed the petitioner vide his e-mail that he has received some reports and he is examining those reports. He further stated that he would place it before respondent no 1 on 5th or 6th February and would convey the decision on to the petitioner. There has been no response since then from respondent no 1.

HENCE THIS WRIT PETITION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 AND ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

AND

IN THE MATTER UNDER SECTIONS 6, 7, 8, 11 AND 18 OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

AND

IN THE MATTER OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDERS OF RESPONDENT NO 1 DATED 27.03.2006 AND 12.05.2006
AND

IN THE MATTER OF IMPLEMENTATION OF LETTERS DATED 01.08.2006, 14.11.2006 ANS 02.01.2007 OF RESPONDENT NO 1 TO RESPONDENT NO 5

AND

IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF MONETARY PENALTY ON RESPONDENT NO 2 FOR HIS FAILURE TO GIVE INFORMATION WITHIN STATUTORY TIME PERIOD OF 30 DAYS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

Mujibur Rehman,
Quarter No. NCH- B/12,
AT/PO – SECL, Gevra Project,
District – Korba,
Chattisgarh 495452 … Petitioner

Versus

1.Central Information Commissioner
4th & 5th Floor, Block No. IV,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110067

2. Public Information Officer,
SECL South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Bilaspur
Chattisgarh

3. First Appellate Authority
SECL South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Bilaspur
Chattisgarh

4. Chairman cum Managing Director
SECL South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Bilaspur
Chattisgarh

5. Secretary
Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bahvan
New Delhi

6. Shri S P Choubey
SECL South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Bilaspur
Chattisgarh … Respondents

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
The other Companion Judges of
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH.

1. This is a petition preferred by the petitioner herein under the provisions of Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of and/or seeking appropriate order(s) in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) for issuance of order(s), direction(s) to the respondent(s) herein directing them to provide the information(s) sought by the petitioner herein vide his application dated 12.12.2005 under Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005) and implement the order dated 27.03.2006 and 12.05.2006, and letters dated 01.08.2006, 14.11.2006 and 02.01.2007 passed by respondent no 1 and also impose monetary penalty on respondent no 2.

2. The Petitioner is employed with South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) since the year 1991. He is presently working as Chief Laboratory Technician and is posted at Vikas Nagar Dispensary, Kusmunda Area, District Korba, Chattisgarh. The Petitioner is a qualified Diploma holder in Medical Laboratory Technology. One Mrs. Mridula Abraham, who was subordinate to the petitioner, was placed higher in seniority list and was promoted earlier than the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an RTI application seeking a copy of rules relying upon which she was promoted and some other information. However, rules have not been given to him so far but the petitioner has been victimized for using Right to Information (RTI). Despite the fact that the petitioner has not received the desired information in more than 15 months, respondent no 1 has failed in its statutory duty to secure complete and correct information from respondent no 2 and to impose penalty on respondent no 2.

3. The respondent 1 is Central Information Commissioner (CIC), a statutory body constituted under the provision of section 12 of the RTI Act. Respondent no 1 is responsible for, hearing appeals against the order passed by the first appellate authority of the Public Information Officer (PIO), Respondent no 1 is also vested with the same power as that of the civil court while trying suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Respondent no 2 is the Public Information Officer (PIO) of SECL, respondent no. 3 is first appellate authority of SECL, respondent no. 4 is Chairman cum Managing Director of SECL and respondent no. 5 is Secretary, Ministry of Coal, hence respondent no. 2-5 are public authority for the purposes of the RTI Act, 2005. Respondent no 6 is the concerned PIO who was responsible to provide information to the petitioner and he failed to do so.

4. The facts leading to the present case are stated as under-

(i) Mrs Mridula Abraham, who was junior to the petitioner, was placed above the petitioner in seniority list and promoted before him on 15.04.2005. This was done contrary to the existing rules. Aggrieved by this action, petitioner filed several complaints to the senior management within SECL but did not get any satisfactory response. He received one letter no SECL / BSP / ADMN / 2005 / 183843 dated 30/31.5.2005 from the management, which stated inter alia as follows:

“As per rule to maintain the seniority, first of all date of appointment is considered and if the date of appointment is same then date of birth is being taken into account for the purpose of seniority.”

Petitioner was aggrieved by this reply because until this incidence, the promotion rules prescribed that the length of an employee’s service in previous post/ grade was an important factor in determining his seniority. Since the petitioner had served for a longer period on the previous grade than Mrs Mridula Abraham, he rightfully deserved to maintain his seniority. The management just mentioned the above rule without providing him with a copy of the rule/order.

A copy of letter no SECL / BSP / ADMN / 2005 / 1838-43 dated 30/31.05.2005 alongwith true typed copy is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “I”.

(ii) On 13.10.2005, a public hearing was organized by the Government of Chattisgarh to listen to public grievances through video conferencing. The petitioner made a complaint to the District Collector in this public hearing. In response, he received a copy of the letter no 11231 dated 18.10.2005, written by Additional District Collector (Korba) to the Chief General Manager, SECL stating, inter alia, the following:

“Kindly peruse the above referred letter. On 13.10.05 at the time of Video Conferencing, Shri C.Juster, Personnel Manager, SECL, Gevra Area from the results of investigation for the promotion, has apprised that in the promotion list, the first name is of Smt. Mridula Abraham and the name of Mohd. Mujibur Rehman is in the second place and the total three places were vacant. Among this, for one post each of General, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, the promotion list has been issued. According to the changed rules, Smt. Mridula Ahraham was given the promotion. Shri C. Juster was asked to provide written information about the changed rules to the applicant and this Office within three days. But the same is still awaited. Shri Mujibur Rehman may inevitably be provided with the copy of the written circular within three days”.

Copy of letter no 11231 dated 18.10.2005 along with true typed translated copy are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “II”.

(iii) Despite such clear instructions from the Additional District Collector, the petitioner was not provided copies of amended rules. In order to obtain a copy of these amended rules and some more related information, petitioner filed an application dated 29.11.2005 under RTI Act, 2005 before respondent no. 2. Copy of the RTI application dated 29.11.2005 alongwith true typed translated copy is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “III”.

(iv) Vide letter no. SECL/BSP/PIO/2005/29 dated 03.12.2005 respondent no. 2, arbitrarily and illegally, dismissed the application under RTI Act, 2005 of the petitioner stating that the application filed by the petitioner was based on four separate issues, therefore, the petitioner should file four separate applications for each of the issues along with the application fees of Rs. 10.00 for each of them. A copy of the letter no. SECL/BSP /PIO/2005/29 dated 03.12.2005 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “IV”.

(v) Petitioner, on 12.12.2005, therefore filed nine separate applications before respondent no. 2 on the same issues that were mentioned in his earlier application dated 29.11.2005 asking this time one question in one application. He also paid separate application fees for each of the nine applications thereby depositing a total of Rs. 90.00. The RTI applications that were not responded to by respondent no 2 are reproduced herein below for easy perusal -

a. The Additional District Collector had mentioned in his letter no 11231 dated 18.10.2005 that Mrs Mridula Abraham had been placed higher than the petitioner in seniority list under the rules as amended by CIL in 2003. The petitioner asked for a copy of these amended rules;
b. Deputy Chief Personal Manager (Administration /Non Executive Establishment) had mentioned in his letter no SECL/BSP/ADMN/2005/1838-43 dated 30/31.5.2005 that “As per rule to maintain the seniority, first of all date of appointment is considered and if the date of appointment is same then date of birth is being taken into account for the purpose of seniority.” The petitioner asked for a copy of this rule.
c. If the rules had been amended in 2003 as mentioned by the Additional District Collector in his letter-dated 18.10.2005, then there would be revised seniority lists in accordance with new rules. The petitioner asked for copies of seniority lists of Laboratory Technician (Technical and Supervisor Grade B) for the years 2004 and 2005;
d. Copy of the Departmental Promotion Committee proceeding for the year 2005 for Chief Pathology Technician;

Copies of all the nine applications dated 12.12.2005 are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “V” (COLLY).

(vi) On 06.01.2006, petitioner received information with respect to one of his RTI application dated 12.12.2005 in which the petitioner had sought a copy of transfer order of Mr. Rajnish Peter, Korba issued from SECL Head Quarter, Manpower Department. However, he did not receive any response, whatsoever, on the other eight RTI applications.

(vii) Aggrieved, petitioner filed first appeal dated 12.01.2006 before respondent no. 3 stating that out of nine applications under the RTI Act, 2005 filed by him on 12.12.2005, he had received only one information with respect to which he had deposited Rs. 4.00 to obtain the Photostat copy of the same. Copy of the first appeal dated 12.01.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “VI”.

(viii) Vide letter no. SECL/BSP/PIO/2005/328 dated 23.01.2006 respondent no. 2 provided incomplete, misleading and false information with respect to petitioner’s other 8 applications. Respondent no. 2 in his reply stated that new seniority norms have been adopted by SECL during the year 2004 and respondent no 2 provided a copy of new seniority list in accordance with new seniority norms and also old seniority list in accordance with previous seniority norms for the year 2003. Copy of letter no. SECL/BSP/PIO/2005/328 dated 23.01.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “VII”.

(ix) On 02.02.2006, petitioner again wrote a letter to the respondent no 3 and to the Chairperson of SECL stating that he had received incomplete, misleading and false information with respect to his applications. A copy of this letter dated 02.02.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “VIII”.

(x) In the meanwhile, the Deputy Collector (Korba) wrote a letter no 2721 dated 06.03.2006 to the Chairperson, Coal India Limited, in which the Deputy Collector made the following observation after non compliance of respondent no 2 to his directions to give amended seniority rules of the year 2003

“The SECL management had agreed to provide a copy of these amended rules of 2003 within 3 days to this office and to Mohd Mujibur Rahman. However, these are expected till date. It is self explanatory that the management representative has misled this office and the applicant. This is very sad.
State level video conferencing is conducted in accordance with the directions of Hon’ble Chief Minister. In which the applications received are required to be addressed within defined time frames. This is monitored by him. SECL management does not seem to be willing to do anything in this episode. They will be themselves responsible for the same.”
A copy of letter no 2721 dated 06.03.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “IX”.

(xi) On receiving no response from respondent no. 3 within 30 days of his first appeal, aggrieved, the petitioner filed second appeal dated 16.03.2006 before respondent no. 1. A copy of the second appeal dated 16.03.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “X”.

(xii) Respondent no 1 issued notice dated 20.03.2006 to respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 to appear on 27.03.2007. A copy of the notice dated 20.03.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XI”.

(xiii) Respondent no 1 vide order dated 27.03.2006, made an adverse observation at the handling of this case by respondent no 2 and also observed that the information that is being sought by the petitioner should be common knowledge and should be suo moto disclosed under section 4 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Respondent no1 further directed respondent no 2 to provide complete information to the petitioner including Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings and promotion rules and seniority rules within 15 working days from the date of order. Respondent no 1 also issued Show Cause Notice to respondent no 2 asking as to why penalty proceedings under section 20 of RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him. Respondent no. 1 further ordered that a copy of its order be sent to respondent no. 5 and to Department of Personnel & Training for their record and initiation of remedial action.

“We have examined the file and heard both parties. We find that the applicant has not been given the information that he has sought, not even the promotion rules, except a copy of the seniority list, which was attested and certified by the PIO during the hearing. The Appellate Authority has failed to apply his mind to the appeal and dismissed it having been told that the information and been supplied, without caring to confirm this with the appellant or indeed giving him a chance to be heard which together with there being no evidence of the AA’s decision having been received by the applicant arouses the suspicion that this decision was only an after thought in the apprehension that the applicant might go and appeal.
The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Is directed to provide all the information asked for by the applicant to him within fifteen working days from the date of issue of this Decision Notice. We accept the plea of PIO Mitra that because he was not the principal supplier of the information, the officer whose assistance he has sought under Sec 5(4) namely GM (P&A) is liable to bear responsibility for the delay and therefore deemed refusal to provide the information sought. He will therefore show cause by April 20th 2005 as to why a penalty of Rs.25,000 should not be imposed upon him.
This appears an egregious case of neglect of responsibility. A copy of this Decision may therefore be sent to the Secretary Coal in the Government of India, and to the Department of Personnel & Training for their record and initiation of remedial action.

A copy of the order dated 27.03.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XII”.

(xiv) Respondent no 2, after the order of respondent no 1, provided a para wise comments dated 01.04.2006 on all the information that was sought by the petitioner. However, this information was also incomplete and misleading for the following reasons:

a. The amended rules of 2003 of CIL, on the basis of which Mrs Mridula Abraham was placed above the petitioner in seniority list, were still not provided to the petitioner.
b. Only the first page of the DPC proceedings were provided. The annexures to the same containing details of professional experiences of all candidates were not provided.
c. Copy of the rules mentioned in letter no SECL/BSP/ADMN/2005/1838-43 dated 30/31.05.2005 were not provided.
A copy of the reply dated 10.04.2006 of respondent no 2 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XIII”.

(xv) Petitioner, vide letter dated 21.04.2006, informed respondent no. 1 that despite the strict orders of respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 to provide all the documents to the petitioner, respondent no. 2 failed to comply with the said order and did not provide complete and correct information. A copy of the letter dated 21.04.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XIV”.

(xvi) A hearing was conducted by respondent no 1 through video conferencing. Despite strong protests from the petitioner that he had received incomplete and misleading information, respondent no 1 concluded that all information had been provided. Respondent no 1 passed an order dated 12.05.2006. On the issue of providing copies of amended rules of 2003 of CIL, the order stated

“GM (P&A) S P Chaubey, treated as CPIO u/s 5(5) has stated that the SECL has no rules governing this procedure but only established practice, termed “Niyam” in Hindi, the language used in the response to the appellant’s application. Regarding this the full information has been provided and there are no seniority rules to provide. Appellant has every right to agitate that the SECL have such rules, but this Commission is not the competent authority to take a decision on such a matter.”

“In this case, the information available with the public authority has been provided now”

A copy of this order dated 12.05.2006 of respondent no 1 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XV”.

(xvii) The petitioner wishes to bring to the notice of this Court a letter no 5352 dated 27/28.06.2005 written by Sh C Juster, Personnel Manager, Gevra Region to the General Manager. This letter confirms the belief of the petitioner that the promotion of Mrs Mridula Abraham was wrong. The letter states as follows:
“Vide Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (Admn./Pers./Estt.) SECL, Bilaspur letter No. SECL/BSP/Admn./2005/1838-43 dated 30/31.5.2005, it was informed that for departmental promotion, the seniority list as per rule on the basis of the first appointment is being prepared and if the date of appointment is same, then on the basis of date of birth, the seniority list is being prepared. In the seniority list prepared on this basis, the name of Smt. Mridula Abraham is at Sl. No. 01 and the name of Shri Mujibur Rahman is at Sl.No. 4. Copy of the referred letter, which self explanatory, is enclosed with this letter for your perusal.
It is to inform you that in all the areas of SECL, for promotion to the next higher post, the seniority list is first prepared from the date of coming to the present post and if the date of coming to the present post is same then from the date of coming to the previous post and if the date of coming to the previous post is same, then from the date of appointment and if the date of appointment is same, the on the basis of the date of birth, the seniority list is being prepared.
The complete Bio-Date of the above two employees is being enclosed with this letter and is forwarded to you. You are requested that on reconsidering the above case, kindly take necessary action on behalf of you.”

This letter makes it amply clear that there were never any amended rules as claimed by the management of SECL and Mrs Mridula Abraham and has been wrongly promoted. The petitioner asked for a certified copy of the rules under which he was placed below Mrs Mridula Abrham but the SECL has so far only provided him with their interpretations. Copy of the above letter dated 28.06.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XVI”.

(xviii) The petitioner in addition to the earlier letter no. SECL/BSP/ADMN/2005/1838-43 dated 30/31.05.2005 has received two letters no SECL/BSP/ADMN/PIO/2006/135 dated 03.02.2007 and letter no SECL/MUMPRA/ DIPIKAEX/PERSONNEL 2007/2447 dated 16.03.2007 16.03.2007 from SECL Bilaspur and SECL Korba Project respectively after the order of respondent no 1 giving different information with respect to promotion norms. The rules are being reproduced herein for easy perusal.

Letter dated 03.02.2007 from SECL Bilaspur
“ Norms for seniority
(1) Date of coming to present grade is being taken.
(2) In case of tie- up, date of appointment and subsequently date of birth is being taken. This is as per letter No. SECL/BSP/ADMN/2005/1838-43 dtd 30/31.05.2005 of the then DYCPM(A)”

Letter dated 16.03.2007 from SECL Korba:-
“Point No 05 : As per prevailing rules in the SECL on promotion, first of all, the date of appointment on the previous post is considered and if two staffs are promoted on the same date, then the appointment on further previous post is considered and if that date is also same, then the date of birth is considered in preparing the seniority list (Copy of this letter is not available in this office).

A copy of the letter no SECL/BSP/ADMN/PIO/2006/135 dated 03.02.2007 and letter no SECL/MUMPRA/ DIPIKAEX/PERSONNEL 2007/2447 dated 16.03.2007 are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XVII”.

However, it is of importance to note that till date, the petitioner has not received the following information on two of his RTI applications dated 12.12.2005:

1. Certified copy of rules as mentioned in letter no SECL/BSP/ADMN/2005/1838-43

2. Copy of DPC proceedings for the year 2005 for the post of Chief Pathology Technician. Whereas the covering note has been provided, the annexures containing professional experience of all candidates has not been provided.

(xviii) Despite this, respondent no 1 has failed to impose any penalty on respondent no 2. The facts are as follows:

a. Vide order dated 27.3.2006, respondent no 1 directed respondent no 6 (concerned CPIO) to show cause why penalty of Rs 25000.00 should not be imposed on him for having failed to provide information to the petitioner in time. Respondent no 1 further made the following observation:-

“This appears an egregious case of neglect of responsibility.”

b. However, in its order dated 12.05.2006, despite concluding that respondent no 6 had failed to provide information within time and that there was no reasonable cause on his part to have done that, respondent no 1 did not to impose monetary penalty on respondent no 6. The order, interalia, read as follows:

“it must be noted that no reasonable cause for delay stands established as to why it was not supplied as per the law in the first instance, although the appellate authority has pleaded ill health which we accept in his case. Because this is the first case of its kind from the public authority, we do not propose a financial penalty. However, disciplinary action against GM (P&A) S P Choubey is recommended u/s 20(2). SECL will initiate such action under the Service Rules applicable to him, which could include but need not remain restricted to issue of a warning for dereliction of duty.”

c. That respondent no 1 communicated the above order to the Chief Managing Director of SECL, through its letter dated 01.08.2006, A copy of this letter was also sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, who is also respondent no 5. A copy of this letter was also sent to respondent no 5. A copy of this letter dated 01.08.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XVIII”.

However, no action has been taken against respondent no. 6 till date.

(xx) Petitioner would like to draw the kind attention of this Hon’ble Court to the provisions of section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which casts a statutory obligation on the CIC to impose penalties on such officials who fail to provide information within prescribed time without any reasonable cause. Sec 20 (1) reads as follows:

“20. Penalties.-(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”

It is respectfully submitted that CIC/ respondent no. 1 did not have discretion to impose penalty. CIC/ respondent no 1 just has to satisfy whether there was a reasonable cause, which prevented the CPIO from providing information in time. If there were none, CIC has a statutory duty to impose penalty under section 20(1) of RTI Act. In this case, respondent no 1 had mentioned clearly that “no reasonable cause for delay stands established”. Still it did not to impose penalty on the ground that “this is the first case of its kind from the public authority.” It is respectfully submitted that respondent no 1 has seriously erred in not imposing penalty under section 20(1) of RTI Act.

(xxi) It is submitted that the petitioner’s exercise of his right to use Right to Information Act, 2005 was not taken in the right spirit with some officials in senior management. The petitioner, has been, therefore, victimized for using Right to Information Act. Some of the instances of petitioner’s victimization are mentioned below:

a. In last 15 years of his service, the petitioner has never been transferred or charge-sheeted. He has an impeccable record of service. After he used Right to Information, in the last nine months, he has been transferred twice. He was working in a 100 bedded hospital at Nehru Shatabdi Hospital earlier. from there he was transferred to SECL, Regional Hospital, Kotma Colliery, Dist. Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh, which is a 50 bedded hospital. However, he is presently posted at Vikas Nagar Dispensary, Kusmunda Area, District Korba, Chattisgarh, which does not have even a single bed and receives very few patients in a day. The petitioner is severely underutilized in his present posting.

b. Immediately after issuance of notice by respondent no 1 to respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 to appear before it, petitioner was released from Gevra area.

c. That the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 14/24.04.2006. The charge against him is:
“Thereafter, consequent upon issue of the promotion order, you have presented an application dated 26.5.2005 in connection with your seniority and promotion, after examination of which, the status report, vide the then Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (Admn.), SECL, Bilaspur’s letter No.1838-43 dated 31.5.2000 was conveyed to you. If you are not satisfied with the above clarification, then in such circumstances, you should have made your complaint before his Senior Officer, after examination of which necessary action would have been taken. But instead of doing so, for settlement of your complaint, you have taken the help of the outside sources.”
A translated copy of this charge sheet dated 14/24.04.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XIX”

f. That vide letter no SECL/BSP/ADMN/MUJIBUR RAHMAN/2006/380 dated 06.04.2006, respondent no 2 described the Chief Minister of Chattisgarh, District Collector, Chief Vigilance Commissioner as well as Central Information Commissioner as outside sources, which the petitioner is alleged to have taken refuge to get his grievance addressed. The letter-dated 06.04.2006 is being reproduced herein for easy perusal

“Further it is to state that the employee concerned instead of approaching to management/ departmental forum to redress his grievance, he directly knocked the door of Chief Minister (CG), Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Collector, as well as Central Public Information Commissioner and created pressure through pressure groups. As a result, concerned Area has been advised to issue him Charge sheet, vide letter No. 291 dtd 22.3.2006”

A copy of this letter dated 06.04.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XX”

g. That the petitioner wrote several letters to the CIC informing CIC of the victimization that he was being subjected to due to his use of RTI. Letters dated 27.03.2006 and 02.02.2007 are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XXI”(COLLY)

(xxii) That respondent no 1 was constrained to write letters to respondent no 5 directing him to take action to stop petitioner’s victimization and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondent no 2 for having done so. Some of the extracts from letters dated 14.11.2006 and 02.01.2007, respectively, are as follows:

“The appellant has come before the Commission vide his application dated 2nd November, 2006 where he has claimed that he is facing victimization and harassment for using RTI against his employer i.e. South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). This issue was also discussed during the hearing where GM (SECL) informed the Commission and went on record vide his letter dated 19th May, 2006, where he has stated that the allegation of appellant that he was charge-sheeted because he approached to Central Information Commission was not correct as in the charge-sheet “word” used “bahri shrout” ( ) did not include Central Information Commission. He was within his right to seek information under RTI Act from the Commission. The pressure groups to whom he approached were listed in the letter addressed to the Commission. This did not include Central Information Commission. However, in the communication that the same General Manager has written to Shri D. S. Rawat, Section Officer, Ministry of Coal, he has very clearly included Central Public Information Commissioner as one of the pressure groups mentioned in his last but one paragraph (copy enclosed). This clearly goes on to show that GM(SECL) Shri S. P. Choubey has given false information before the Commission and is guilty of perjury. In the final order issued by the Commission dated 12th May, 2006, copy of which is enclosed, the Commission has recommended disciplinary action against GM (P&A) in accordance with the Service Rules applicable to him. Taking note of the above false information the Commission has directed me to request you to ensure that the charges may also include providing false information to the Central Information Commission as well. The Commission has requested the Ministry to ensure that disciplinary action against Shri Choubey is taken tithe earliest under intimation to the Commission.

Letter dated 02.01.2007
“This is in continuation to letter of even number dated 14.11.2006 where the Commission has requested the Ministry to ensure that disciplinary action against Shri S. P. Choubev, GM of SECL be taken at the earliest under intimation to the Commission.

The appellant of this case, Mr. Muzibur Rahman has complained to the Commission that he has been facing harassment from SECL on account of his use of RTI Act, 2005. The Commission has noted this with concern and would like to know the facts of the case for which the Chief Information Commissioner has directed me to ask the concerned Joint Secretary handling the subject matter of SECL to come and explain on 17.1.2007 at 1130 hrs the action taken in this case to the Secretary or the Commission and measures that can be taken to stop the harassment of Mr. Muzibur Rahman, Chief Lab Technician, Jamuna Coalrie, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kotma, Madhya Pradesh. Copy of the letter dated 14.11.200 is also enclosed convenience and the complaint received on email is enclosed for your kind notice.

Additional Secretary of respondent no 1 vide e-mail dated 02.02.2007 informed the petitioner that in the hearing held on 17.01.2007 respondent no 5 was asked to submit report within one week, A copy of the letters dated 14.11.2006, 02.01.2007 and e-mail dated 02.02.2007 are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XXII”(COLLY).

(xxiii) Under secretary of respondent no 1 vide his e-mail dated 03.02.2007 informed the petitioner that he has received some reports from the Ministry of Coal from Mr. Rajiv Sharma and he would place the report before respondent no 1 on 5th or 6th February and would convey the decision on to the petitioner. There has been no response since then from respondent no 1. A copy of this e-mail dated 03.02.2007 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XXIII”.

(xxv) It is submitted that the petitioner again wrote an e-mail to respondent no 1 stating that he is still waiting for a reply from respondent no 1’s end. Respondent no 1 vide e-mail dated 20.04.2007 replied that the Assistant registrar of respondent no 1 would be intimating the latest position to the petitioner. However, till date no response has been received by the petitioner. A copy of the e-mail dated 20.04.2007 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XXIV”.

(xxvi) It is submitted that in view of the facts stated herein above, it is amply clear that the petitioner herein has not left any stone unturned in pursuing his application under the RTI Act dated 29.11.2005 before the office of the respondent no. 2 and respondent no 1 in every possible manner but both the respondent no. 2 and 1 have failed and / or neglected to respond in a positive manner to the various representations, requests and verbal reminders of the petitioner herein till date.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has no option except to approach this Hon’ble Court at this stage of the matter.

7. It is submitted that in view of the facts and submissions stated hereinabove it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has done everything that he could under the RTI Act, 2005 and, therefore has a legal and valid right to claim the information from the respondent no. 1 and 2 and respondent no 1 and 2 being public servants are duty bound to consider and grant the information to the petitioner herein at the earliest possible in order to avoid any further loss and damage to the petitioner’s right to information.

8. It is submitted that under the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove, the petitioner has been left with no option and / or alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court under the provisions of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to file the present writ petition and seek appropriate relief(s) from this Hon’ble Court.

9. It is submitted that the office of the respondent no 1 and 5 is located in Delhi, and as such this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and grant relief(s) as sought for under this writ petition.

10. It is submitted that Annexure I to XXIV as annexed to this writ petition are true copies of the originals.

11. It is submitted that the petitioner herein reserve their right to further amend, supplement such other further facts and submissions as may be deemed fit and proper and necessary in the interests of justice during the course of the pendency of this writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.

12. It is submitted that there is no equally effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner for relief as claimed and sought for in this writ petition.

13. It is submitted that the petitioner has not filed any other similar petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court or before this Hon’ble Court or any other Courts in India pertaining to the subject matter in the present petition.

14. It is submitted that being seriously affected and aggrieved by the decision of the respondent no.1 with regard to the petitioner’s applications under RTI Act, 2005 dated 12.12.2005 as stated hereinabove, the petitioner prefers this writ petition on following amongst other
G R O U N D S

a. BECAUSE respondent no 1 is a statutory body constituted under the RTI Act, 2005 and is also vested with the same power as that of the civil court while trying suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Among the other powers that it has, it can recommend initiation of departmental proceedings under the Service Rules. Any order recommending such proceedings is as such a judicial order and non-obedience of such order and / or recommendation is equivalent to contempt of court.

b. BECAUSE respondent no 1 failed to exercise jurisdiction provided to it under the RTI Act, 2005 to impose penalty as provided under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

c. BECAUSE respondent no 5, despite various reminders by respondent no 1, has failed to comply with the strong recommendation of respondent no 1 to initiate disciplinary action under the Departmental Service Rules against respondent no 6.

d. BECAUSE respondent no 1 failed to appreciate that the petitioner did not get the entire information that he wanted. Respondent no 2, has, till date, not provided the rules under which Mrs. Mridula Abraham was promoted before the petitioner.

e. BECAUSE the charge of perjury is grave and respondent no 1 had vide letter no. CIC/AT/A/2006/00040 dated 14.11.2006 informed respondent no. 5 to include perjury as another offence committed by respondent no 6. Respondent no 5, despite such a strong recommendation by respondent no 1 against respondent no 2, has failed to initiate any disciplinary action under the Service Rules till date.

f. BECAUSE respondent no 2 had provided contradictory information to the petitioner first on 23.01.2006 and then on 10.04.2006 which is misleading and false. In the reply dated 10.04.2006, respondent no 2 had stated that there are no there are no revised rules or any seniority list for the year 2003 where as in its earlier 12 page reply dated 23.01.2006 to the petitioner with respect to the same query, respondent no 2 had replied that the seniority list and promotion rules have been revised in the year 2004. It is also important to mention here that there were two vacancies in the department where the petitioner worked however in the earlier reply they had stated there were three vacancies.

g. BECAUSE the petitioner has received three letters from SECL which give different criterion for promotion and the petitioner has become clueless as to which of them is correct.

h. BECAUSE respondent no 3 failed to even respond to the first appeal dated 13.01.2006 of the petitioner within the 30 days. It is pertinent to mention that 30 days is the statutory time limit within which his appeal should have been decided.

i. BECAUSE the petitioner has not only been transferred from his parent posting but has also been charge-sheeted on frivolous ground of using external pressure by way of approaching respondent no 1, the Chief Minister and the Chief Vigilance Officer. It is a constitutional right of petitioner to approach the forum of Central Information Commission (respondent no 1) or the Chef Minister or the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, for exercising his right to information. Writing to them will not create any external pressure but in the wisdom and imagination of SECL officials.

j. BECAUSE respondent no 5 despite letters dated 14.11.2006 and 02.01.2007 from respondent no 1 to respondent no 5 asking them to appear and explain the facts and circumstances of harassment of the petitioner, no action has been taken till date and the victimization of the petitioner is continuing till date.

k. BECAUSE the Under Secretary of respondent no 1 vide his e-mail dated 03.02.2007 informed the petitioner that he has received report from the Ministry of Coal prepared by Mr. Rajiv Sharma and that he would place the report before respondent no 1 on 5th or 6th February and would convey the decision on to the petitioner, but till date there has been no response from respondent no 1 and as such the petitioner’s harassment has continued. The petitioner again wrote an e-mail which was replied by respondent no 1 on 20.04.2007 that the Assistant Registrar of respondent no 1 would convey the petitioner the latest position. The petitioner has received no reply till date from the office of respondent no 1.

l. BECAUSE respondent no 1, instead of believing respondent no 2, should have initiated inquiry against respondent no 2 for providing contradictory information which was false and misleading. Respondent no 1 is vested with the power to initiate inquiry under section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 on receipt of a complaint from a person who believes that he has been given incomplete, false and misleading information under the RTI Act, 2005.

m. BECAUSE respondent no 1 despite having the statutory power to initiate inquiry at its level, did not do so against respondent no 2 for providing contradictory information which was false and misleading. On the contrary respondent no 1 vide its order dated 12.05.2006 went ahead to say that :

“Regarding this the full information has been provided and there are no seniority rules to provide. Appellant has every right to agitate the SECL have such rules, but this Commission is not competent authority to take a decision on such matter”

n. BECAUSE respondent no 1 should have reviewed its order after seeing that no Departmental inquiry under the Service Rules was being initiated against respondent no 2 by respondent no 5 on respondent no 1’s strong recommendation. Respondent no 1 should have atleast imposed monetary penalty on the erring respondent no 2.

o. BECAUSE in its order dated 12.05.2006, respondent no 1, despite concluding that respondent no 6 had failed to provide information within time and that there was no reasonable cause on his part to have done that, still did not to impose monetary penalty on respondent no 6.

p. BECAUSE respondent no 1 has a statutory duty under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 to impose penalty on respondent no 2 and respondent no 1 failed to impose any monetary penalty on respondent no 2 for having failed to give the required information to the petitioner within stipulated time of 30 days.

q. BECAUSE respondent no 1 ignored to see that respondent no 2 failed to respond to the RTI application dated 12.12.2005 of the petitioner and respondent no 1 condoned the conduct of respondent no 2, against which RTI Act, 2005 strictly lays down provision of penalty.

r. BECAUSE Petitioner is seriously aggrieved of the fact that respondent no 1 accepted such a bizarre argument from respondent no 2 that “there are no rules governing” formation of seniority lists and that seniority lists were being prepared by way of established practice. It is pertinent to mention here that a big public sector like Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries have been working without having laid down rules and procedures for preparing seniority lists. The management is desperately trying to avoid public disclosure of such rules, as it could expose anomalies. Unfortunately, respondent no 2 bought a completely misleading argument from respondent no 6 and closed the case of the petitioner.

s. BECAUSE when the RTI Act, 2005 was enshrined the main intention of the legislator was to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and to stop corruption by way of giving access to the citizens of India access to such information. The same is evident from the Preamble of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced for the convenience of this Hon’ble Court as under:-

“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;

AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;

AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it.”

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take this Writ Petition into consideration and issue appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, writ of mandamus and / or such other writ(s) as may be deemed fit and proper to

(a) direct respondent no 4 & 5 to implement the order(s) dated 27.3.2006 and 12.05.2006 and initiate action against respondent no 6, and;

(b) direct respondent no 5 implement the letter dated 01.08.2006, 14.11.2006 and 02.01.2007 passed by respondent no 1 and initiate action against respondent no 6 and;

(c) direct respondent no 1 to impose monetary penalty on respondent no 2, and;

(d) direct respondent no 1 to award adequate compensation under section 19(8) of RTI Act for the financial, mental and psychological harassment suffered by him, and;

(e) call for records pertaining to the case of petitioner from respondent no 1, and;

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

Mujibur Rehman … Petitioner

Versus

1.Central Information Commissioner and ors … Respondents

I N D E X
Sno. Particulars Court Fee Page No
1. Notice of Motion A
2. Urgent Application B
3. Memo of Parties C-D
4. List of dates and Events E-
5. Writ Petition along with
Affidavit Rs. 50.00 1- 33A

6. Annexure “I”
Copy of letter no SECL/BSP/ADMN
/2005/1838-43 dated 30/31.05.2005
alongwith true typed copy 34-36

7. Annexure “II”
Copy of letter no 11231 dated
18.10.2005 along with true
typed translated copy 37-39

8. Annexure “III”
Copy of the RTI application dated
29.11.2005 alongwith true
typed translated copy 40-42

9. Annexure “IV”
Copy of the letter no. SECL/BSP
/PIO/2005/29 dated 03.12.2005 43-45

10. Annexure “V”(COLLY)
Copies of all the nine RTI
applications dated 12.12.2005 46-71

11. Annexure “VI”
Copy of the first appeal dated
12.01.2006 72-73

12. Annexure “VII”
Copy of letter no. SECL/BSP/PIO/
2005/328 dated 23.01.2006 74-107

13. Annexure “VIII”
A copy of this letter dated 02.02.2006 108-109

14. Annexure “IX”
Copy of letter no 2721 dated
06.03.2006 110-113

15. Annexure “X”
Copy of the second appeal dated
16.03.2006 114-126
16. Annexure “XI”
Copy of the notice dated 20.03.2006 127

17. Annexure “XII”
Copy of the order dated 27.03.2006 128-130

18. Annexure “XIII”
Copy of the reply dated 10.04.2006
of respondent no 2 131-152

19. Annexure “XIV”
Copy of the letter dated 21.04.2006 153

20. Annexure “XV”
Copy of order dated 12.05.2006
of respondent no 1 154-157

21. Annexure “XVI”
Copy of letter dated 28.06.2006 158-161

22. Annexure “XVII”(COLLY)
A copy of the letter no SECL/BSP/ADMN
/PIO/2006/135 dated 03.02.2007
and letter SECL/MUMPRA/ DIPIKAEX
/PERSONNEL 2007/2447 dated 16.03.2007 162-165

23. Annexure “XVIII”
Copy of letter dated 01.08.2006 166-167

24. Annexure “XIX”
Translated copy of charge sheet
dated 14/24.04.2006 168-170

25. Annexure “XX”
Copy of letter dated 06.04.2006 171-173

26. Annexure “XXI”(COLLY)
Letters dated 27.03.2006 and 02.02.2007 174-175

27. Annexure “XXII”
Copy of the letters dated 14.11.2006,
02.01.2007 and e-mail dated
02.02.2007 176-183

28. Annexure “XXIII”
Copy of e-mail dated 03.02.2007 184

29 Annexure “XXIV”
A copy of the e-mail dated 20.04.2007 185

30. Application alongwith affidavit
under Article 226 read with
Section 151 CPC for exemption from
filing certified copy of orders.

30. Vakalatnama

Ratika Mehrotra
(Advocate)
Address: E-109, Pandav Nagar (Ground Floor)
Delhi 110092
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

Mujibur Rehman … Petitioner

Versus

1.Central Information Commissioner and ors … Respondents

MEMO OF PARTIES

Mujibur Rehman,
Quarter No. NCH- B/12,
AT/PO – SECL, Gevra Project,
District – Korba,
Chattisgarh 495452 … Petitioner

Versus

1.Central Information Commissioner
4th & 5th Floor, Block No. IV,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110067

2. Public Information Officer,
SECL South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Bilaspur
Chattisgarh

3. First Appellate Authority
SECL South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Bilaspur
Chattisgarh

4. Chairman cum Managing Director
SECL South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Bilaspur
Chattisgarh

5. Secretary
Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bahvan
New Delhi

6. Shri S P Choubey
SECL South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Bilaspur
Chattisgarh … Respondents