Central Information Commission
Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas vs Ministry Of Mines on 3 September, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MINES/A/2024/648858
Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Mines
Date of Hearing : 29.08.2025
Date of Decision : 29.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.06.2024
PIO replied on : 03.07.2024
First Appeal filed on : 30.07.2024
First Appellate Order on : 21.08.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 05.11.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.06.2024 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Details of total Nos. of valid BSM mining leases that were lawfully granted with total extent of areas in Hects. that too, after complying all the statutory preconditions that are prescribed in Para 1 and in all the relevant Acts, Rules, High Court Orders, Supreme Court Orders as per our Constitution as on 12.01.2015, the date on which the amendment to MM(D&R) Act that was introduced out of the then granted 67 Nos. BSM mining leases to the private sectors lessees in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.
2. Details of the total Nos. of BSM mining leases and the total extent of areas in Hects. that were unlawfully granted above said 67 Nos. BSM mining leases to the private sector in Tamil Nadu and Andhra as on 12.01.2015, that too without complying the above said statutory preconditions, particularly site specific Environment Clearance, Consent to Establish and Operate, etc. as per the relevant Acts and Rules and Supreme Court orders.
3. Details of total Nos. of BSM mining leases and the total extent of areas that were granted in the Government lands by the Govt.
of Tamil Nadu and Govt. of Andhra without collecting the compensation amount as per Rule 72 of MCR, 1960, introduced on 12.01.2015 out of then existed 67 Nos. BSM mining leases.
Page 1 4.1. Details of total 22 Nos. of Garnet mining leases and names of the original Beach Sand Minerals lessees from whom, the said 22 Nos. Garnet mining leases that were unlawfully allowed to transfer to M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates as on 12.01.2015.
4.2. Copies of note files showing the justification that the MoM and DAE have allowed to grant the 27 Nos. BSM Garnet mining leases without considering the existence of remaining 6 Nos. Atomic Minerals in BSM mining leases and also unlawfully allowed to mine all the remaining 6 Nos. Atomic Minerals such as Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Sillimenite, Leucoxene and Monazite and to sell the said minerals covering the then existed and operated 27 Nos. BSM mining leases as on 12.01.2015. 5.1. Copies of the note files showing the justification that the MoM & DAE have unlawfully allowed to grant the 40 Nos. BSM Garnet, Ilmenite and Rutile mining leases without considering the existing remaining 4 Nos. non included atomic minerals of Zircon, Sillimenite, Leucoxene and Monazite as on 12.01.2015. 5.2. Name of the concerned officials who had unlawfully given prior approval for grant of 40 Garnet, Ilmenite and Rutile mining leases with an intention to unlawfully allow M/s. V.V. Minerals and Beach Sand Minerals Co. to mine and sell the non-included Zircon, Sillimenit, Leucocene and Monazite best reasons known to them.
6. Details of total Nos. of the BSM minerals quantities that were unlawfully allowed to be mined and sold covering the non included atomic minerals of Zircon, Sillimenite, Leucoxene and Monazite from the 40 Nos. Garnet, Ilmenite and Rutile mining leases that were granted and operated as on 12.01.2015.
7. Details of total Nos. of fully Acts and Rules complied, District Collector recommended, public hearing conducted, DAE No objection issued mining lease applications, year wise submitted from 1994 onwards covering BSM mining lease applications as well as the total Nos. of inland Garnet mining lease applications that were state wise kept pending without disposal with extent of areas that were kept pending without disposal as per the prescribed time limit of 12 months in compliance of the Rule
63.A(c) of MCR, 2016 as on 12.01.2015 in Tamil Nadu and we extract below the relevant said Rule for your ready reference.
"Mining Lease within twelve months from the date of receipt of the application for mining lease under rule 22."
8. Details of the note files showing the justification for unlawfully granted 2 Nos. families, in which one family belongs to Mr. S. Vaikundarajan and his 3 Nos. brothers and also the partner of M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates in Tamil Nadu and Andhra and also to M/s. Trimex Industries [P] Ltd to an extent of 720 Hect. out of the then existed 67 Nos. BSM mining leases as on 12.01.2015...etc.."
The CPIO, Ministry of Mines vide letter dated 03.07.2024 replied as under:-
".................to inform you that the information sought by you is vague and not specific. Since the information sought by you does Page 2 not attract the definition of information under RTI Act, 2005, hence, the CPIO is not in a position to provide you specific information.
2. It seems that some of the information sought by you includes information about the atomic mineral resources in India and their uses which cannot be disclosed as Atomic Minerals are of strategic and economic importance, as such, the information is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Further, some of the information sought by you relates to grant of mineral concessions for the minerals located within their respective jurisdiction. Therefore, the details of grant of these mining leases may be obtained from the respective State Government concerned."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 21.08.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Mr. B. John Solomom, Advocate- participated in the hearing.
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, CPIO and Mr. Vinod Kumar, CPIO- participated in the hearing.
Mr. B. John Solomom, Advocate stated that the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application has not been furnished by the PIO within stipulated time frame.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the information sought by Appellant relates to grant of mineral concessions by the State Government of Tamil Nadu for the beach sand minerals located within its respective jurisdiction. Therefore, the details of grant of these mineral concessions may be obtained from the state government concerned. A written submission dated 12.08.2025 has been received from the Respondent and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..7. Submissions: The information sought by the applicant is neither specify or clear. The applicant's queries pertain to the interpretation of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. Further, the queries made by the applicant in the RTI Application are more in the nature of eliciting explanation or clarification from the respondents rather than information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The queries made by the applicant therein did not qualify to be information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The information sought relates to grant of mineral concessions by the State Government of Tamil Nadu for the beach sand minerals located within respective jurisdiction. Therefore, the details of grant of these mineral concessions may be obtained from the State Government concerned7. Submissions: The information sought by the applicant is neither specify Page 3 or clear. The applicant's queries pertain to the interpretation of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. Further, the queries made by the applicant in the RTI Application are more in the nature of eliciting explanation or clarification from the respondents rather than information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The queries made by the applicant therein did not qualify to be information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The information sought relates to grant of mineral concessions by the State Government of Tamil Nadu for the beach sand minerals located within respective jurisdiction. Therefore, the details of grant of these mineral concessions may be obtained from the State Government concerned....."
Another written submission dated 18.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..The information sought by the applicant is neither specify or clear. The applicant's queries pertain to the interpretation of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. Further, the queries made by the applicant in the RTI Application are more in the nature of eliciting explanation or clarification from the respondents rather than information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The queries made by the applicant therein did not qualify to be information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The information sought relates to grant of mineral concessions by the State Government of Tamil Nadu for the beach sand minerals located within respective jurisdiction. Therefore, the details of grant of these mineral concessions may be obtained from the State Government concerned...
Decision:
Upon perusal of cases and submissions during hearing, it is observed that an appropriate response has been furnished by the PIO. Furthermore, the written submission furnished by the PIO is comprehensive and self- explanatory. In the given circumstances, since the response of the PIO is found appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is thus 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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)