Central Information Commission
Mr. Anil Jauhari vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 30 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000871/19145
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000871
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Anil Jauhari
604, Riddhi Siddhi Cooperative Housing
Society Limited,
Next to Gaikwadnagar Bus Depot, Malad
(West), Mumbai-400095
Respondent : Mr. S. K. Srivastava
Public Information Officer & Dy. CE(Project) Department of Atomic Energy Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd Vikram Sarabhai Bhawan, Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094 RTI application filed on : 16/09/2011 PIO replied : 16/12/2011 (after FAA's order) First appeal filed on : 31/10/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 01/12/2011 Second Appeal received on : 14/03/2012 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Inspection of Entire Proceedings of Recruitments and certified copies of Please contact CPIO for required documents regarding advertisement no. NPCIL/AMS/2002/02- fixing the mutual convenient EMPL0YMENT NEWS DATED 07-13 DECEMBER 2002 under serial date. Accordingly, you can nos. (7) 02 posts of Assistant Manager OL (8)03 no.'s Senior Hindi visit our office for inspection Translator. of documents.
2. Inspection of entire documents & proceedings related to enquiry Please contact CPIO for committee constituted by Executive Director (Personnel) vide Office fixing the mutual convenient Order No. NPCIL: AMS: 3: (227) P: 2003: 68 dt.07/ 16.12.2003 to date. Accordingly, you can investigate in this matter in reference of letter no. visit our office for inspection NPCIL/CO/A&DC/2004/18 issued by Shri S.K. Agarwal, AGM (A&DC) of documents. Chairman of the Committee and certified copies of required documents during the inspection of documents.
3. Inspection of entire documents & proceedings related to vigilance enquiry It is mentioned that Vigilance under NPCIL against my complaints to President of India, Prime Minister Directorate has not done any of India, Cabinet Secretary, Home Secretary, Secretaries, CV DOPT, investigation on the said Ministry of Labour, etc. during the year, 2003 and certified copies of complaint during the year required documents during the inspection of documents. 2003.
4. Inspection of entire documents & proceedings related to inspection of It is informed that the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited's HQ. Mumbai by the sub- information is relating to the committee of Committee of Parliament on Official Languages held on Parliamentary Committee and 15.01.2002 and certified copies of required documents during the the same cannot be disclosed inspection of documents. under Section 8 (1) (c).
5. Inspection of entire documents & proceedings related to assurance given It is informed that the Page 1 of 2 to the sub-committee of the Committee of Parliament Official Language information is relating to the held on 15.01.2002 during the inspection Nuclear Power Corporation of Parliamentary Committee and India Limited's HQ. Mumbai and the certified copies of required the same cannot be disclosed documents during the inspection documents. under Section 8 (1) (c).
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA disposed off the appeal and directed the PIO to provide the requisite information to the Appellant within 10 working days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Anil Jauhari on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio; Respondent: Mr. S. K. Srivastava, Public Information Officer & Dy. CE(Project) on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
As far as query 01 & 02 is concerned the appellant states that he has done inspection of the records but states that some of the files and records have not been shown to him. The Commission directing another inspection of the records by the Appellant on 26th June 2012 from 10.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 26 June 2012 from 10.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO. In case there are any records or file which the appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records do not exist.
As regards query 04 & 05 the information has been denied by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)© exempts, "information, the disclosure of which would cause breach of privilege of Parliament of the State Legislature". The PIO is unable to explain how disclosure of this would cause breach of privilege of Parliament. In any appeal proceedings the onus to prove that the denial of information was justified is on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. Since no explanation has been given the plea for exemption is no upheld. The PIO will facilitate an inspection of these records also to the Appellant on the same date.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 26 June 2012 from 10.30AM onwards. The PIO will give attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 500 pages. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 30 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PN) Page 2 of 2