Central Information Commission
S Renganathan vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 17 September, 2024
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
शिकायत संख्या /Complaint No. CIC/NPCOI/C/2023/636152.
Shri S Renganathan. ... अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Nuclear Power Corporation of India.
Date of Hearing : 11.09.2024
Date of Decision : 11.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.03.2023
PIO replied on : 04.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 17.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 19.07.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 27.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Provide certified copies of all Office Orders, Circulars and Endorsements for Covid19 issued by NPCIL from 2020 onwards.
2. Provide certified copies of all office orders, circulars and endorsements for covid19 issued by Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) from 2020 onwards. FA Order
3. Provide the certified copies of day wise attendance punching details (In numbers) of all employees including contract employees who have attended duty during the period of Covid-19 from March 2020 to Dec 2021.
4. Provide the certified documents of action taken sofar against NPCIL order no. NPCIL/HRP/2(201)/2015/221 dated 26.10.2015 by Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP).
5. If not so, provide the certified documents as to why by Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project has not taken action on office order no. NPCIL/HRP/2(201)/2015/221 dated 26.10.2015.
6. Provide the certified documents of details of employees who are completed additional qualification entered their service book as per Point no 18 and point no 29 of the guidelines dated 26.10.2015.
7. If not so, provide the certified documents as to why by Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project did not collect the details from employees as per Point no 18 and point no 29 of the guidelines dated 26.10.2015."
Page 1 The CPIO, Kundankulam Nuclear Power Project vide letter dated 04.05.2023 replied as under:-
"The responses received from nodal agencies are given below:
Q.No 1) Available in KKNPP Intranet page Q.No 2) Available in KKNPP Intranet page Q.No 3) Details not available with this section Q.No 4) The order No. NPCIL/HRP/2(201)/2015/221 dated 26.10.2015 containing the guidelines was circulated in e-notice for information of all employees.
Q.No 5) Not applicable in view of point No.4 above. Q.No 6) Information sought is exempted under section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. Q.No 7) Not applicable in view of point No.6"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 19.07.2023 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Skanan, Sr. Mgr, CPIO along with Mrs Shraddha Gupta, Sr. Mgr, CPIO Shri Chinmaya, Sr Mgr & Shri Chetan Mittal, Sr Mgr (Vig) The CPIO submitted that replies to the query which were not exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act,2005 were furnished to the appellant. However, the CPIO has denied only that information which is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act,2005. Further, no ground of larger public interest was disclosed by the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the case records which reveal that appropriate response has been sent by the Respondent on the basis of available records, in terms of the RTI Act.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the records of the case at hand and deliberation between parties, it appears that the Respondent had sent information available on records. Considering the fact that the information furnished by the Respondent is in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and did not suffer from any legal infirmity therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.
It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Page 2 Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission finds that in the absence of any wilful or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)