Central Information Commission
Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 29 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175
Dr. D. DHAYA DEVADAS ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Atomic
Energy, Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18.04.2024 FA : 07.06.2024 SA : 26.09.2024
CPIO : 21.05.2024 FAO : 01.07.2024 Hearing : 24.12.2025
Date of Decision: 28.01.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.04.2024, seeking information on the following points under para 16 therein:
i. "Details of the District: wise, mining lease entities wise, BSM mining leases wise, BSM minerals wise that the said 64 Nos. BSM mining leases that were granted in Tamil Nadu, after submission of Site Specific Environment Clearance as per Environment Protection Act issued by the MoEF and the Site Specific Consent to Establish and Operate that were issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, in which 61 Nos. were granted within Page 1 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175 the National Marine Biosphere of Gulf of Manor from 1990 onwards and 3 Nos. were granted within CRZ areas in Kanyakumari District from 2000 onwards, where all the above said 7 Nos. Atomic Minerals such as Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Sillimenite, Leucoxene & Monazite richly deposited.
ii. Details of the District wise, mining lease entities wise, BSM mining leases wise, BSM minerals wise that the 64 Nos. BSM mining leases that were granted without. submission of Site Specific Environment Clearance under Environment Protection Act issued by the MoEF and the Site Specific Consent to Establish and Operate that were issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, in which 61 Nos. were granted within the National Marine Biosphere of Gulf of Manor 1990 onwards and 3 Nos. within CRZ areas in Kanyakumari District from 2000 onwards, where all the above said 7 Nos. Atomic Minerals richly deposited.
iii. Details of the name/names of Atomic Minerals out of said 7 Nos. Atomic Minerals for which the District wise, mining lease entities wise, BSM mining leases wise Site Specific Environment Clearance that were issued by the MoEF and the minerals wise Site Specific Consent to Establish and Operate that were issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board covering the 64 Nos. BSM mining leases from 1990 onwards.
iv. Details of the District wise, entities wise, Atomic Minerals wise out of said 7 Nos.
Atomic Minerals 49 Nos. manufacturing Factories were commenced their operation to manufacture the Atomic Minerals, after obtaining Site Specific Environment Clearance as per Para 2.(b)of EIA Notification 1994 from the MoEF and the Site Specific Consent to Establish and Operate that were issued under Water [Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board covering said 49 Nos. very huge capacity factories within the National Marine Biosphere of Gulf of Manor 1990 onwards.Page 2 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175
v. Details of the District wise, entities wise, Atomic Minerals wise out of said 7 Nos.
Atomic Minerals wise 49 Nos. manufacturing Factories that were commenced their operation to manufacture the Atomic Minerals out of said 7 Nos. Atomic Minerals, without obtaining statutorily prescribed Site Specific Environment Clearance as per Para 2.(b) of EIA Notification 1994 from the MoEF and the Site Specific Consent to Establish and Operate that were issued under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board covering said 49 Nos. very huge capacity factories within the National Marine Biosphere of Gulf of Manor 1990 onwards.
vi. Details of name/names of Atomic Minerals out of said 7 Nos. Atomic Minerals for which the District wise, entities wise, BSM factories wise Site Specific Environment Clearance were issued by the MoEF and the Site Specific Consent to Establish and Operate that were issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board covering the 64 Nos. BSM mining leases from 1990 onwards.
vii. Details of 49 Nos. Atomic Minerals manufacturing factories wise Atomic Energy Regulatory Board license issued for operating the said 49 Nos. factories under sections 16 and 17 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 read in conjunction with Rule 3 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) notification S.0.1210 dated 24.04.2009 covering the Beach Sand Minerals (BSM) processing facilities.
viii. Details of total District wise, entities wise, mining lease wise, year wise, non-
included minerals such as Ilmenite, Rutile, Ziron, Sillumenite, Leucoxene and Monazite wise unlawfully mined said 6 minerals covering the 25 Nos. BSM Garnet mining leases unlawfully granted in Tamil Nadu from 1990 onwards. ix. Details of total District wise, entities wise, mining lease wise, year wise, non-
included minerals such as Ziron, Sillumenite, Leucoxene and Monazite wise Page 3 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175 unlawfully mined said 4 minerals covering the 39 Nos. BSM Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile mining leases unlawfully granted in Tamil Nadu from 06.10.1998 onwards. x. Details of the Garnet mining leases that were transferred to M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates from the various original Garnet lessees in Tamil Nadu from 1990 without prior approval from the Ministry of Mines and also execution. xi. Details of the unlawfully granted BSM Garnet mining leases and inland Garnet mining leases in the Government poramboke land without collecting the compensation amount under Rule 72 of MCR, 1960 from the introduction of said rule on 17.01.2000 in Tamil Nadu.
xii. Details of the actions that were taken by your department to recover the cost of the illegally mined and sold 7 Nos. Atomic minerals without any valid mining leases and manufacturing factories, that too within the Eco-sensitive National Marine Biosphere of Gulf of Manor from 1990 onwards in compliance of the relevant Act, Rules, High court and Supreme court orders as per our Constitution in connivance with the State and Central Government Department officials in spite of our repeated complaints.
xiii. Details of the actions that were taken by your department to recover environmental damages that were caused by M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates with the active connivance of concerned central and state government department officials, on account of illegal mechanized mining that too, within the most eco-sensitive areas of over 10,000 Hects. of Non-leased areas that too, within National Marine Biosphere of Gulf of Manor and CRZ areas from 1990 onwards in compliance of the relevant Act, Rules, High court and Supreme court orders as per our Constitution in connivance with the State and Central Government Department officials in spite of our repeated complaints."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.05.2024 stating that the information sought is not available for points 16(i)-16(vi) & 16(viii)-16(xiii) of the RTI Application and for point no.16(vii), it was informed that the RTI Application is transferred to Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) for furnishing the information.
Page 4 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/6431753. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the reply received in respect of points 16(i)- 16(vi) & 16(viii)-16(xiii) of the RTI Application, filed a First Appeal on 07.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 01.07.2024 upheld the reply provided by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.09.2024, inter alia stating as under:
"4.2. We submit that the said First Appellate Authority has no mineral knowledge. It is the undeniable and undisputable facts that the DAE has unlawfully issued handling licenses to various lessees, without any valid mining lease only with an intention to allow the looting of the 7 Nos. Atomic Minerals by M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates, that too mentioning imaginary large extent of mining lease areas in total violations of the Acts, Rules, High Court orders and Supreme Court orders and the Constitution of India, that too based on the fraudulently submitted applications for handling licenses under the prescribed Form-A. So, they should have kept the records of such details in their office. They cannot simply say that the Information sought is not available. Hence could not be provided."
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
5. The Appellant was represented by Advocate B John Solomon during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Suresh N M, US & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. Upon a preliminary perusal of the material available on record, the Commission at the outset drew the attention of the Rep. of the Appellant towards Rule 3 of The Right to Information Rules, 2012 regarding the word limit prescribed therein and inquired if he was aware of the word count of instant RTI Application, to which the Rep. could not offer a satisfactory response. Further, the Commission inquired from the CPIO about the authority, entrusted with the grant of mining lease, to which the CPIO stated it to be the State Govt. concerned. Subsequently, the Commission sought to ascertain if the Appellant had approached the State Government in this regard. However, the Rep. of the Appellant expressed his inability to confirm and stated he understands that the instant Second Appeal Page 5 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175 does not bear merit as the record holders are the State Govts. and the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF). Nonetheless, the Commission took on record the written submissions of the Appellant dated 17.12.2025, wherein the grounds of second appeal and other material facts, already available on record was reiterated.
7. The Commission further proceeded to take on record the written submissions filed by the CPIO on 16.12.2025, stating inter-alia as under:
"(i) Grant of Mining lease under the provision of MMDR Act, 1957 comes under the purview respective State Government and previous approval for atomic mineral are accorded by Ministry of Mines under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act, 1957.
(ii) Since, the details of records of licenses issued by DAE are older than 10 years, no information is available in this regard. As per record retention schedule of this Department, the records of issued licenses is retained only for a period of 10/5 years.
Hence, no information is available.
(iii) The specific measures of systemic improvements adopted by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to curb the illegal mining activities in India is available on DAE website. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith. The matter related to illegal mining of BSM by private operators was under adjudication in Suo-Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in Writ Petition (WP) No. 1592 of 2015. Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2025 had issued many direction including penal action against private mining operators. Against the impugned order in WP No. 1592 of 2015, the private mining operators filed number of SLPs in Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is still subjudice."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the instant second appeal is premised on the primary argument that the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) ought to be possessing the information sought for at points 16(i) to 16(vi) & 16(viii) to (xiii) of the RTI Application. The Appellant has challenged the claim of unavailability of information cited by the CPIO with the following arguments extracted from the grounds of second appeal:
Page 6 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175"4.2. We submit that the said First Appellate Authority has no mineral knowledge. It is the undeniable and undisputable facts that the DAE has unlawfully issued handling licenses to various lessees, without any valid mining lease only with an intention to allow the looting of the 7 Nos. Atomic Minerals by M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates, that too mentioning imaginary large extent of mining lease areas in total violations of the Acts, Rules, High Court orders and Supreme Court orders and the Constitution of India, that too based on the fraudulently submitted applications for handling licenses under the prescribed Form-A. So, they should have kept the records of such details in their office. They cannot simply say that the Information sought is not available. Hence could not be provided."
9. It is pertinent to note that a close scrutiny of the RTI queries reveals that while insisting upon availability of information with DAE, the Appellant has inter alia conjectured about availability of such mining lease data under various categories as enumerated by him spanning across a time period of over 20-30 years. For emphasis, the queries that are prefixed with a narrative running into 5 pages ask for district wise; mining lease entities wise; BSM mining lease wise; mineral wise data based on varied situations spelt out by the Appellant and subsequently seeks atomic mineral wise data on the same basis.
10. At the outset, it is observed that the RTI applicants are required to ordinarily restrict their applications to 500 words as per Rule 3 of The RTI Rules, 2012. Further, Section 2(f) of the RTI Act lays down the definition of the term "information". The incoherent nature of information sought, if available, would require the CPIOs to invest a disproportionate amount of time/resources to decipher and comprehend the requirement; ascertain the factual position as well as the availability of such data and then collect as well as collate it.
11. Given the facts of the instant case, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] which inter-alia observed as under:
Page 7 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility, and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.' Emphasis Supplied
12. Further, it needs to be appreciated that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions/inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subjected to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
Page 8 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
13. Besides, it would be in order to refer to the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the Aditya Bandhopadhyay (supra) judgment:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." Emphasis Supplied
14. Now, it is a matter of record as gathered from the archives of the Commission that till date a substantial number of cases filed by the Appellant against the Ministry of Mines and other public authorities have been heard and decided by the CIC. These decisions notified prior to the year 2016 can be accessed from the website of the Commission at cic.gov.in.(2016) and the decisions pronounced onwards of 2016 can be accessed at cic.gov.in.
15. In the recent past, certain matters filed against the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) were decided vide Second Appeal Nos. CIC/MOENF/A/2024/635017 + CIC/MOENF/A/2024/637608 + CIC/MOENF/A/2024/639134 + Page 9 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175 CIC/MOENF/A/2024/643190 on 16.09.2025, which incidentally concerned RTI Application(s) seeking similar nature of information involving M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates. The bench in the averred set of second appeal(s) observed a perpetuity in the manner in which the Appellant has been filing such RTI Applications and observed as under:
"27. Be that as it may, the Commission from perusal of records observes that more than 90 cases of the same Appellant against same and related Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In addition, six number of Second Appeals are also listed for today's hearing. The Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information repeatedly. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional."
16. Having perused the archives of the Commission and considering the nature of the RTI Application under reference as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it will be in order to infer that while access to information may be the objective of the Appellant to pursue his public interest litigations etc., pursuing the cause over a prolonged period of time through cumbersome RTI Application(s), which do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is not tenable. Here, it will also not be out of place to recall that the Rep. of the Appellant has himself admitted to the absence of merit in the matter during the hearing.
17. Similarly, adverting to the allegations of falsifying the stance taken by the CPIO about unavailability of information, it would be relevant to refer to certain precedents of the orders of the superior Courts as under:
(i) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held inter-alia as under:Page 10 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished." Emphasis Supplied
(ii) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein, inter-alia it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
(iii) Further, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed inter-alia as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
18. The findings of the Commission in the instant matter thus largely point towards an apparent misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the Appellant over past years. In this context, it would be relevant to invite the attention of the parties to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, wherein it was inter-alia held as under:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under Page 11 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175 the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.'
19. Further, in the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.'
20. Besides, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.'
21. The Appellant would be well advised to desist from filing such cumbersome and overlapping RTI Applications on the same subject matter as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed.
22. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Respondent appears to have not critically examined the RTI queries at the initial stage or at the stage of hearing of the second appeal, as the aspect of unavailability of information; retention schedule of Page 12 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175 records was harped upon without paying attention to the fact that the information sought is indeterminate and speculative. Moreover, in such matters, where the RTI applicants insist their belief about a public authority being a custodian of records based on hypothesis and without even effectively spelling out the specific requirement, the Respondent is expected to provide a more cogent response.
23. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 28.01.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 13 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)