Samir Sardana vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 15 January, 2024

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Samir Sardana vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 15 January, 2024

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                     के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                 बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2022/664484

Shri Samir Sardana                                                 ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                     VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Department of Atomic Energy                               ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                            :   15.01.2024
Date of Decision                           :   15.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner             :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :             14.09.2022
PIO replied on                    :             12.10.2022
First Appeal filed on             :             21.10.2022
First Appellate Order on          :             25.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :             05.12.2022

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-

"Audits Pio to state whether dae has directed or conducted a security audit, of the dae facilities, in the last 7 years,as under Name of dae site (ucil/nfc/hwb/fbr/research reactors/ irel/rmp/npcil/barc/enrichment plants, storage of du/ snf/tailings/plutonium), year(s) of audit,name of audit agency Pio to provide a copy of the scope of work of the latest security audit carried out of ucil/nfc/hwb/rmp/barc/ npcilienrichment plants/snf and du sites/tailing ponds . Pio to provide a copy of the rfq and rfp of the latest security audit carried out of ucil/nfc/hwb/rmp/npcil/ barc/enrichment plants/snf and du sites/tailing ponds Pio to state whether dae has directed or conducted a environmental audit of the dae facilities, in the last 7 years, as under:

• name of dae site (ucil/nfc/hwb/fbr/research reactors/irel/rmp/npcil, barc, enrichment plants, storage of du/snf/tailings/plutonium), year(s) of audit, name of audit agency . Pio to provide a copy of the scope of work of the latest environmental audit carried out of ucil/nfc/hwb/rmp/barc/ npcil/enrichment plants/snf and du sites/tailing ponds Pio to provide a copy of the rfq and rfp of the latest environmental audit carried out of ucil/nfc/hwb/rmp/npcil/ barc/enrichment plants/ snf and du sites/tailing ponds ENQUIRY PIO TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT INTO THE SHOOTING INCIDENTS, IN THE KUDANKULAM N-POWER PLANTS, IN THE LAST 10 YEARS PIO TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT INTO THE TRITIATD WATER POISONING INCICDNT IN THE KAIGA FACILITY OF DAE, IN THE LAST 10 YEARS SPECIFIC URANIUM THEFT Page 1 of 3 PIO to state the number of cases of THEFT OR SHORTAGE OF OR MISSING LEU OR SEU FROM DAE SITES OR RECOVERY FROM 3RD PARTIES OF LEU OR SEU In the last 15 years, year by year PIO to state the following details, of the ABOVESTATED incidents • MONTH AND YEAR OF INCIDENT, LOCATION OF INCIDENT NATURE OF INCIDENT (THEFT/SMUGGLING/SHORTAGE), FIR NUMBER OF INCIDENT NATURE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL(% OF LEU) PIO to state the number of cases of THEFT OR SHORTAGE OF OR MISSING NATURAL URANIUM, YELLOW CAKE, U308, NGADU, MDU FROM DAE SITES OR RECOVERY FROM 3RD PARTIES OF YELLOE CAKE, NATURAL URANIUM, U308,NGADU,MDU U in the last 15 years, year by year Etc."

The CPIO and US, D/o Atomic Energy vide letter dated 12.10.2022 provided point wise response to the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.10.2022. The FAA, NCPW and Head, DAE vide order dated 25.11.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO and stated that RTI is not a forum to resolve grievance raised by the Appellant and cannot be misused as a personal redressal mechanism or a tool for issues which does not serve any Government Purpose.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

A written submission has been received from the CPIO and US, NCPW, D/o Atomic Energy vide letter dated 03.01.2024, the relevant extracts of which are as under:

"5. Second Appeal: The Appellant has now preferred a second appeal to the Hon'ble cic requesting to provide all the information sought by the appellant and also stated that FAA has not provided VC hearing.

In this regard, it is humbly submitted before Hon'ble CIC that the appellant was provided the personal hearing by First Appellate Authority which was not utilized by the appellant and it is also submitted that the information available and which can be disclosed had already been provided to the appellant by CPIO, NCPW and the information which cannot be disclosed has been refused under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. The information which is not available at NCPW was not provided to the applicant mentioning that "The Information Not available at NCPW". And also the part of the information pertaining to other CPIOs have been transferred to the respective CPIOs.

6. In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed before the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner for dismissal of the 2nd Appeal preferred by Shri Samir Sardana.

Page 2 of 3

7. The undersigned will attend before the Hon'ble Chief information Commissioner for the hearing scheduled on 15.01.2024 at 01.00 PM through video conference at the Venue National Informatics Centre, CGO Complex, 2nd Floor, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai alongwith Shri S.K. Agrawal, Scientific Officer/H and Head, ICSD, NCPW, DAE to present the case before Hon'ble CIC."

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present Respondent: 1. Smt C M S Jarsi, CPIO, NPCW, DAE;

2. Shri Prakash Mathpati, Section Officer, NCPW, DAE The Appellant stated that disclosure of nationality of the IAEA Inspectors who inspected each unit of UCIL/ NFC/ HWB/ RMP/ NPCIL enrichment plants in the last 3 years will not result in breach of strategic interest of the state hence exemption u/s 8 (1) (a) was incorrectly claimed. Furthermore transfer of application u/s 6 (3) could have been undertaken by the CPIO, DAE for the information that was not held and available with the public authority.

Smt C M S Jarsi referred to her written submission dated 03.01.2024 and stated that reply was provided in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and part of the queries where the transferee authority could have been identified were transferred by them as per Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005. With regard to the disclosure of nationality of IAEA inspectors she reiterated that the list of Designated IAEA Inspectors was a restricted document hence exemption u/s 8 (1)

(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 was claimed.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission