Central Information Commission
Debashish Ghosh vs Uranium Corporation Of India Ltd. on 23 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UCOIL/C/2023/138042
Shri Debashish Ghosh निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024
Date of Decision : 21.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 24.06.2023
PIO replied on : 24.07.2023
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 18.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Annual Report UCIL (55th) for the year 2021-22, at page 90, displays photo of Chairman, UCIL with caption " Inauguration of Horizontal Belt Filter of Jaduguda Mill" and in his address to Shareholders of UCIL he has presented" During the year, the Drum Filters at Jaduguda Mills have been replaced with Horizontal Belt Filters which will help in reducing the filtration losses and improve recovery".
Are these Horizontal Belt Filters of Jaduguda Mill, which replaced Drum Filters of Jaduguda Mill, over and above the Horizontal Belt Filter which is inaugurated by Director (BARC), now Secretary, DAE and Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, on 16th March, 2023?
What does it convey when it is addressed by Chairman, to the Shareholders of UCIL, that Drum Filters at Jaduguda Mills have been replaced with Horizontal Belt Filters?
Is the replacement operationally complete as the Horizontal Belt Filters have been Installed, Commissioned and PUT TO USE after inauguration by Chairman, UCIL?
2. When were the Horizontal Belt Filter (s) which replaced Drum Filter (s) of Jaduguda Mill was/were inaugurated by Director (BARC), now Secretary, DAE and Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission Installed, Commissioned, and "PUT TO USE"?
Page 1 of 33. When were the Horizontal Belt Filters which replaced Drum Filters of Jaduguda Mill, as presented by Chairman, UCIL in AGM for the Year 2021-22, Capitalised and exhibited accordingly in Annual Accounts of UCIL?
4. Exact dates when the Horizontal Belt Filters which replaced Drum Filters of Jaduguda Mill were installed in the year 2021 and started reduction of Filtration Loss and improved recovery which it was supposed to do as per the Chairman, UCIL presentation to Shareholders of UCIL in 55th AGM? Etc."
The CPIO, DGM (Pers/Inst.) vide letter dated 24.07.2023 replied as under:-
"In this connection, information sought for is provided as under:
Sl. No Reply
1. Drum filter was replaced by Horizontal Belt Filter
2. HBF-1 & 2 are commissioned on 06/12/2021 and HBF-3 was commissioned on 28/04/2022 as per bill date.
5 (e) Nil 5 (f) Final acceptance certificate bill has been pending [03 & 5-(a to d)]: Please refer to our Annual Report. [04]: Same as 02."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 12.08.2024 has been received from the CPIO reiterating the reply dated 24.07.2023 sent by the PIO. He further stated that a First Appeal was filed by the Applicant on 01.08.2023 which was decided vide FAA's order dated 19.09.2023, relevant excerpt whereof is as under:
As Ex-Director(Finance) of the Company, you are well versed with the functioning of UCIL.
The PIO has tried his best and provided the information which are made available to him by the concerned departments on the subject matter. Further, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve problems raised by the appellant; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications; or to provide the reasons/justifications for anything done or not done. The CPIO only provides information available with him or held by him. After going through all the provisions, RTI application and the information provided by the PIO, it is found that PIO has complied with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
In view of the above, reply given by Public Information Officer is in order and therefore, the appeal is disposed off.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri M V Suresh - Chief Manager, Legal was present through video conference during hearing.
Both parties present during hearing reiterated their respective contentions, as already borne out of the aforementioned records. The Complainant contended that he had filed all these RTI applications in order to unearth financial irregularities which had Page 2 of 3 occurred in the Respondent organisation, resulting in huge losses. Respondent stated that in response to the Complainant's queries, information as available on record and as permissible under the RTI Act, had been duly provided to the Complainant, in terms of the mandate of the RTI Act.
Decision Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of the parties it is noted that information as available on record with the public authority and as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has already been furnished to the Complainant as noted above.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with these Complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the cases reveal that the Respondent had sent response based on information available on record with them, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. 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 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 is of the opinion that information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and neither any case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in this case. Since appropriate response has been duly provided by the Respondent, hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required in this case.
The case is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)