Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sunilkumar Jain vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 23 December, 2021

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली,
                               ली New Delhi - 110067

 ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.        CIC/NPCOI/A/2019/155014

Shri Sunil Kumar Jain                                      अपीलकता /Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

CPIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.            ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri S K Srivastava - CPIO/AGM;
Shri Girish Khambodia - NPCL, Kota;
Smt. Sangeeta Patare - Sr. Manager

Date of Hearing                         :   22.12.2021
Date of Decision                        :   23.12.2021
Chief Information Commissioner          :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on         :   08.05.2019
PIO replied on                   :   13.06.2019
First Appeal filed on            :   02.07.2019
First Appellate Order dated      :   -
2nd Appeal dated                 :   05.11.2019
 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2019 seeking information on the following points:-

The CPIO/AD (CP & CC), Ed- Power, vide letter dated 13.06.2019 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with thereply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated

02.07.2019 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 15.12.2021 has been received from the Appellant contending as follows:

The Respondent has sent a submission dated 20.12.2021, relevant extracts whereof is:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and the Appellant emphasised that he sought information against the second part of query no. 3. It is his contention that he had been offered inspection whereas he sought certified copy of the documents which are available in the Mumbai office, delivered to him.

Respondent - Smt. Sangeeta Patare responded stating that information sought by the Appellant in the second part of query number 3 included certified copies of all DPC reports/proposals, minutes, approvals etc. for a period of eight years.

The said information is not available in a consolidated form and no separate data is maintained in this regard. Considering that the information is voluminous as such, the Appellant was offered inspection of records, which he did not avail.

Decision:

In the light of the aforesaid position, it is noted that the reply sent by the PIO is comprehensive and well within the precincts of the RTI Act. The access to information had also been provided by the Respondent by granting inspection of documents, for the voluminous records. The Appellant is at liberty to access the information at his convenience, and hence no further intervention is required in this case.

The appeal is disposed off as such.

वाई.

                                                                        वाई. के . िस हा)
                                                         Y. K. Sinha (वाई         िस हा

Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4