Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Samir Sardana vs Atomic Energy Regulatory Board on 31 July, 2024

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/AERBD/A/2022/663341

Shri Samir Sardana                                                ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board                          ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                          :    29.07.2024
Date of Decision                         :    29.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner           :    Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           12.09.2022
PIO replied on                    :           11.10.2022
First Appeal filed on             :           18.10.2022
First Appellate Order on          :           16.11.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :           03.01.2024

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:-

"ITDB AND NUCLEAR SAFETY • PIO to state the number of incidents reported by DAE or GOI to the ITDB of the IAEA, in the last 15 years, year by year (classified as Group 1, 2 And 3) • PIO to state the following details of the incidents reported, to the ITDB (FOR Group 1,2 And 3 SEPARATELY) o YEAR OF ITDB REPORTAGE, MONTH AND YEAR OF INCIDENT,LOCATION OF INCIDENT,NATURE OF INCIDENT (THEFT/SMUGGLING/SHORTAGE), FIR NUMBER OF INCIDENT, NATURE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL,NAME OF AGENCY WHICH TESTED THE PURPORTED NUCLEAR MATERIAL 15 • PIO to state the number of incidents reported by DAE or GOI, to the ITDB of the IAEA, in the last 15 years, year by year (classified as Category 1 to 5, as per IAEA Safety Standards) • PIO to state the following details of the incidents reported, to the ITDB (FOR Category 1 to 5, SEPARATELY) o YEAR OF ITDB REPORTAGE,MONTH AND YEAR OF INCIDENT, LOCATION OF INCIDENT,NATURE OF INCIDENT (THEFT/ SMUGGLING/ SHORTAGE),FIR NUMBER OF INCIDENT,NATURE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL, NAME OF AGENCY WHICH TESTED THE PUPORTED NUCLEAR MATERIA.

THEFT • PIO to state the number of cases of THEFT OR SHORTAGE OF, OR MISSING NUCLEAR MATERIAL FROM DAE SITES, in the last 15 years, year by year • PIO to state the following details, of the ABOVESTATED incidents o MONTH AND YEAR OF INCIDENT, LOCATION OF INCIDENT, NATURE OF INCIDENT (THEFT/SMUGGLING/SHORTAGE), FIR NUMBER OF INCIDENT, NATURE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL, QUANTITY OF MATERIAL, QUANTITY RECOVERED AND YEAR OF RECOVERY The CPIO vide letter dated 11.10.2022 replied as under:- "PIO to state the number of incidents reported by DAE or GOI to the ITDB of the IAEA, in the past 15 years, year by year (classified as Group 1, 2 & 3) Response: The table providing the information is enclosed herewith as Annexure-1. PIO to state the following details of the incidents reported to the ITDB (For Group 1, 2 and 3 separately) Year of ITDB reporting, month and year of incident, location of incident, nature of incident (Theft/Smuggling/Shortage), FIR, Number of Incident, Nature of Nuclear Material, Name of Agency Tested the Purported Nuclear Material. Response: The table providing the information is enclosed herewith as Annexure-1. The information sought under the title THEFT and EXIM is not pertaining to AERB. PIO to state the number of incidents reported by DAE or GOI to the ITDB of the IAEA in the last 15 years, year by year (classified as Category 1 to 5, as per IAEA Safety Standards).

. Response: The table providing the information is enclosed herewith as Annexure-1. PIO to state the number of incidents reported by DAE or GOI to the ITDB (FOR Category 1 to 5, Separately) Year of ITDB reporting, month and year of incident, location of incident, nature of incident (Theft/Smuggling/Shortage), FIR, Number of Incident, Nature of Nuclear Material, Name of Agency Tested the Purported Nuclear Material. Response: The table providing the information is enclosed herewith as Annexure-1. The information sought under the title THEFT and EXIM is not pertaining to AERB PIO to state the Number of cases, of the Nuclear hoaxes, which were reported to ITDB, in the last 7 years.

Response: The table providing the information is enclosed herewith as Annexure-1."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 16.11.2022 held as under:-

"The specific information sought under the headings THEFT and EXIM are related to nuclear material, the custodian of which is the Department of Atomic Energy. Considering that the original RTI query made by the appellant was to DAE, which was transferred by that authority to AERB under section 6(3) of the RTI ACT, 2005. It is seen that CPIO, AERB has correctly provided the information available with AERB on the cases reported to ITDB under various categories.

Further, it may be noted that the list provided with the Annexure to the response to RTI query contains information only on the cases reported to ITDB, which answers the original query. Cases not reported to ITDB are not in the list. The incidents are reported in ITDB only after verification of its authenticity. Further, the list provided by CPIO included the name of agencies which carried out testing of the material, in the last column of the table, wherever relevant. The analysis Page 2 of 3 of purported material is not carried out in all cases. Further, AERB is not holding information on the FIR numbers.

It is noted that the Appellant has stated that the RTI application has been rejected, which is not true. It is noted that the information available with AERB has been provided by the CPIO in the response to the to the RTI query."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Dr. Pankaj Tandon - CPIO and Mr. Dinesh Rane - deemed PIO were present through video conference during hearing.

Respondent present during hearing submitted that information available on record with the public authority had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the case and averments of the Respondents present for hearing, indicate that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case. In the given circumstances, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off 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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)