Central Information Commission
Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas vs Indian Bureau Of Mines on 8 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/IBOMN/A/2024/632492
Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Indian Bureau of Mines
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025
Date of Decision : 02.09.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.01.2024
PIO replied on : 30.01.2024
First Appeal filed on : 30.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 03.05.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 29.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.01.2024 seeking information on following points:-
i. Name of Mine Owners wise, Local Traders wise, Exporters wise, etc. registered Mines Code Nos. for the Beach Sand Minerals such as Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Sillimenite and Leucoxene obtained from the Regional Controller of Mines, Bangalore under the above said Amendment Rule 45 of MCDR introduced on 09.02.2011, as per the following tabular column.
No. Name of Mine Mine Code No. & Name of
Owner/Exporter/Local Date Mineral/s
Trader, etc. with
address
ii. Details of Mine Owners wise, Local Traders wise, Exporters wise, etc. registered Mines Code Nos. wise, year wise, minerals wise quantities shown in the monthly and annual returns submitted to the Regional Controller of Mines, Bangalore from the date of Registration by the said Mine Owners, Local Traders, Exporters, etc. Page 1 or Copies of the monthly and annual returns submitted for the Beach Sand Minerals such as Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Sillimenite and Leucoxene by all the Mine Owners, Local Traders, Exporters, etc. to the Regional Controller of Mines, Bangalore from the date of Registration of the Mine Code."
The CPIO, Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangaluru vide letter dated 30.01.2024 replied as under:-
".............to inform you that this office has received an RTI application (RTI/F-1294/226/2023-2024) dated 04/01/2024 from the Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries, along with an IPO of Rs. 10/- (IPO No. 50F 059620 of Rs. 10/-) on 08/01/2024. The information sought in the application pertains to Registration, Monthly returns, and Annual returns which comes under the purview of your office. Therefore, the said RTI application is being transferred to Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Mining & Mineral Statistics Division, Indian Bureau of Mines, 5th Floor, Block 'D', Indira Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 under section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 for sharing the information, if available in your office with intimation to this office."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.04.2024. The FAA, IBM, Nagpur vide order dated 03.05.2024 stated as under:-
"Please refer to the appeal of Dr D. Dhaya Devadas dated 30.04.2024 received in this office on 01.05.2024 through email. It has been learnt from the document enclosed in the appeal that the RTI was submitted to CPIO, IBM Bangalore on 4.1.24. The same was however transferred to CPIO, MMS Section, IBM Nagpur on 30.1.24. CPIO, MMS Section in reply to the appeal received has informed that the RTI was not received at his end till 30.4.24.
It has been learnt that the RTI pertains to the information desired on returns/registration submitted/approved respectively by IBM Bangalore region.
Therefore, the appeal received on 30.4.24 on the RTI application dt. 4.1.24 submitted to CPIO, IBM Bangalore region, needs to be disposed by FAA (IBM, Bangalore region) itself, as per the rules.."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Mr. B. John Solomon, Advocate- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Dr. Sudhakaran T.L., Regional Mining Geologist, Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore- participated in the hearing.
Page 2 Mr. B. John Solomon, advocate stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO till date.
The Respondent reiterated the contents of their written submission and stated that as per the communication received from Controller of Mines (MTS), IBM, Nagpur, vide email dated 10.07.2025, all the approval of registration of atomic minerals is done by AMD. Written submission dated 22.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
From the above, it is submitted that the applicant has sought the information in a format prescribed by them. However, as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is required to provide information in the form in which it is available and is not obligated to create or compile data in the format requested by the applicant. Further, the information sought was not specific to any particular mine, trader, exporter and period.
3. After due examination, it was found that the requested information in format was not available in the Office of the Regional Controller of Mines (O/o RCOM), IBM, Bangalore.
4. The list of approved registration available in the IBM website (https://ibm.gov.in/IBMPortal/pages/list-of-approved-registrations) also does not contain mineral-wise/mine-code wise information (Copy of Active Registration Under Rule 45 of MCDR 2017 sample is enclosed as Annexure II).
5. It is submitted that Beach Sand Minerals (including Garnet and Sillimanite) were notified as Atomic Minerals under Part B of the First Schedule of the MMDR Act, 1957 in 2016. Consequently, as per sub-
rule (3) of Rule 3 of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, the Atomic Minerals Directorate (AMD) is the competent authority for Beach Sand Minerals and the provisions of these rules shall not apply to atomic minerals specified under Part B of the First Schedule to the Act. [Part B of the First Schedule of the MMDR Act, 1957 and sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of MCDR, 2017 is enclosed as Annexure III)].
6. Further, from the year 2022-23 onwards, leaseholders and any persons engaged in trading, storage, end-use, or import/export of minerals have been submitting their Monthly and Annual Returns under Rule 45(5)(b) & (c) (for leaseholders) and Rule 45(6)(a) & (b) (for traders, storage, end-users, etc.) of MCDR, 2017 through electronic format on the new MTS portal of Indian Bureau of Mines. Since Beach Sand Minerals fall under the purview of the Atomic Minerals Directorate (AMD), IBM, Bangalore has not received any Monthly or Annual Returns related to Beach Sand Minerals from 2022-23 onwards.
7. Prior to 2022-23, the Monthly and Annual Retums were submitted online through the old IBM portal. However, the reports relating to Beach Sand Minerals are not available in this office. Hence, the requested information could not be furnished by this office to the applicant.
8. The Mining & Mineral Statistics (MMS) Division, IBM is the data repository and custodian of records related Registration and Returns Page 3 under Rule 45 of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules (MCDR) 2017 (Function of MMS Division enclosed as Annexure IV).
9. Since the sought information were not available in the O/o RCOM, and as mentioned at point no. 8 above, the RTI application was transferred on 30.01.2024 to the CPIO, MMS Division, IBM, Nagpur, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, with a copy endorsed to the applicant and the First Appellate Authority, IBM, Bangalore (Copy of letter, dispatch entry register, and speed post tracking number enclosed as Annexure V). The transfer of application was made to facilitate the applicant with the best possible chance of obtaining the required information from the MMS Division, which is the designated data repository and the competent authority for the matter.
10. The applicant subsequently filed a first appeal before Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur via email dated 30.04.2024.
11. Vide email dated 03.05.2024 Controller of Mines, Mining Tenement System (MTS). IBM, Nagpur who was First Appellate Authority of CPIO, MMS Division forwarded the first appeal of applicant alongwith mail of MMS Division, IBM to Regional Controller of Mines, IBM, Bangalore ([email protected]) (Copy of email and enclosures attached as Annexure VI).
12. From the above said email dated 03.05.2024, it is respectfully submitted that the application was transferred only because the information was not available in this office. The transfer was done through speed post, not by email. Moreover, no specific directions were received from FAA, IBM, Nagpur to CPIO, IBM Bangalore. Hence, no action has been initiated for the email dated 03.05.2024.
13. It is to be further submitted that as per the communication received from Controller of Mines (MTS), IBM, Nagpur, vide email dated 10/07/2025, all the approval of Registration of atomic minerals is done by AMD. (Copy of email enclosed as Annexure VII). In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant before the Hon'ble CIC are not tenable, as all possible efforts have been made by the undersigned to process and facilitate the request in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Note for kind consideration: It is humbly submitted that, in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of MCDR, 2017, all matters related to Beach Sand Minerals (classified as Atomic Minerals under Part B of the First Schedule to the MMDR Act, 1957) fall entirely under the jurisdiction of the Atomic Minerals Directorate (AMD). Sharing of such information is sensitive in nature and may have implications for National Security.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that appropriately action as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been taken by the concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Page 4 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 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)