Central Information Commission
Shri V. Konda Naik vs Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru) on 25 June, 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/HWPMG/A/2024/621235.
Shri. V. Konda Naik. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru).
Date of Hearing : 20.06.2025
Date of Decision : 20.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.02.2024
PIO replied on : 14.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 20.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 20.04.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.05.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Certified Copy of Action Taken Status at Engineering In Charge (HRD), Heavy Water Plant Manuguru on my ORGINAL REPRESENTATION dated 14-06-2022 Submitted Through Proper channel Regarding for Enquiry/Investigation of my on-duty accident during the Course of Employment addressed to Honble Chairman and Member, Factory Inspector, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai in Connection Filenotig, Dispatch Register, Correspondences and Related Documents may please provide.
2. Certified Copy of Action Taken Status at Deputy General Manager (ES) Heavy Water Plant Manuguru on my ORGINAL REPRESENTATION dated 14-06-2022 Submitted Through proper channel Regarding for Enquiry/Investigation of my on-duty accident during the Course of Employment addressed to Honble Chairman and Member, Factory Inspector, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai In Connection Filenotig, Dispatch Register, Correspondences and Related Documents may please provide."
The CPIO, Chief Administrative Officer vide letter dated 14.03.2024 replied as under: -
"As per CIC vide decision No. 883/IC(A)/2007 dated 14/06/2007, the information seeker being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Therefore, the information seeker and the Page 1 provider being part of the same system should work together for evolving approaches to remove irritants in their mutual interaction, as a lot of public resources devoted to provide service to the entire Indian community is thus un-productively used They ought to exercise restraints in misusing the Act, lest they should dilute the mandate of RTI Act to empower the common man.
As the present case pertains to the grievance of the applicant, he is requested to use the internal grievance redressal mechanisms to resolve the same."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.03.2024. The FAA, General Manager vide order dated 20.04.2024 replied as under:-
"1. The representation dated 14/06/2022 was forwarded by EIC, HRD to O/o DGM (ES) on 29/06/2022. (copy enclosed)
2. The representation dated 14/06/2022 was further forwarded by O/o DGM (ES) through proper channel in sealed cover on 29/06/2022. (Copy enclosed)"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 14.06.2025 has been received from the CPIO, Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...4. In the instant case, the information sought by the appellant pertains to the certified copy of action taken status of his representation dated 14.06.2022 at Engineering-In-Charge (HRD), Heavy Water Plant, Manuguru and at Deputy General Manager (ES), Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru), which was addressed to Hon'ble Chairman and Member, Factory Inspector, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai.
5. Further, it has been observed that the information available on record at that time pertaining to the said RTI queries were furnished to the Appellant along with the related documents by First Appellate Authority, Heavy Water Plant, Manuguru vide letter ref. no. HWP (M)/ADMN (L)/RTI-1628/Appeal/2024/98 dated 20.04.2024.
6. At the present time, it is to submit that the issues raised by Shri Konda Naik in his representation dated 14.06.2022 were addressed and disposed by the Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai and the same was communicated to the Appellant vide letter ref. no. HWP (M)/ADMN (L)/VKN/2024/441 dated. 20.03.2025(Exhibit-R3).
7. Based on the foregoing circumstances, the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner is hereby requested to dispose of the Second Appeal of Shri V. Konda Naik considering the fact that the said representation dated 14.06.2022 preferred by Shri V. Konda Naik has been disposed off by the Original addressee i.e. Page 2 Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai and was duly communicated to the Appellant.
8. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO & First Appellate Authority is appropriate at that point of time and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, it is opined that no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in the matter. The Second appeal may be kindly be disposed of accordingly..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. G. Veenu, CPIO/Chief Administrative Officer- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Appellant stated that action taken on his representation has not been furnished to him till date. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the action taken on his representation as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent stated that the representation dated 14.06.2022 preferred by Shri V. Konda Naik has been disposed off by the Original addressee i.e. Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai and was duly communicated to the Appellant. He averred that copy of aforementioned order of Chairman has been annexed with the written submission and same has ben marked to the Appellant as well.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. It is noted that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Commission observes that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the Act. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of 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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)