Central Information Commission
Meenaxee Padhy vs Petroleum And Explosives Safety ... on 31 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602450+
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602436+
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602459+
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602460+
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602461
Meenaxee Padhy
....िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO/Control of Explosive
Petroleum and Explosives Safety
Organization, A Block, 5th Floor,
CGO Complex, Seminar Hills, Nagpur - 440006.
&
CPIO/Dy. Secretary
M/o Commerce & Industry,
Department of Industry Policy
... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 20.03.2017
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : 05.05.2017
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 10.05.2017
Date of hearing : 27.08.2018
Facts:
The complaint vide RTI application dated 20.03.2017 sought information on six points as under:
1. Details of public authority to verify and certify the system of implementation of marking in conspicuous indelible characters of 1 stamping or painting on each bag of Ammonium Nitrate as required under Rule 19(1) of Ammonium Nitrate Rule 2012.
2. Copy of verification report of marking of each bag in conspicuous indelible characters by stamping or painting as required under Rule 9(1) of the Ammonium Nitrate Rule 2012.
3. Other related information.
The CPIO's reply and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order are not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the complainant filed complaint under the provision of Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 10.05.2017.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Complainant : Present
Respondent : Shri S.D Mishra (Nagpur)
Controller of Explosives cum CPIO
Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization Shri A.P. Singh, PIO from Delhi.
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had received the RTI application dated 20.03.2017 on 24.03.2017 and provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 03.05.2017. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The complainant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the complainant on point nos. 1, 2 & 6 of the above stated RTI application which is deplorable for which a show cause notice needs to be issued to the then respondent CPIO.
2In view of the above, a Show Cause notice is issued to the then respondent CPIO u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
Why proper reply was not provided to the complainant on the above mentioned points.
The explanation to the above stated Show Cause notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name, address, mobile no., present place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent CPIO should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
It was also noted by the Commission that the respondent authority in its reply on point nos. 3, 4 & 5 of the above stated RTI application had stated that information as sought by the complainant was not available in the document form which stated that the organization did not maintain any record of the inspection or random checking carried out by them at different places, particularly in the districts of Jharkhand, Bihar, Maharashtra and Odhisha. This means that no inspection had been undertaken by the organization so far to oversee the nature of implementation of the provision as envisaged u/r 9(1) of the Ammonium Nitrate Rule, 2012. This reply also seems to be deplorable that no inspection had been done by the Nagpur based and Explosives Safety Petroleum organization which they were duty bound to do. The Commission is constrained to issue a direction u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Udhyog 3 Bhawan, New Delhi to send a report to the Commission containing number of field inspections done by the organisation during the last two years.
The registry of this bench is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udhog Bhawan, New Delhi for his personal knowledge and follow up action in the matter.
With the observation and direction as above, the case is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय)
Amitava Bhattacharya (अिमताभ टाचाय
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कु मार तलपा )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
4