Central Information Commission
Jadhav Subhash Naik vs Bhabha Atomic Resarch Centre (Mumbai) on 6 August, 2025
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/BARCM/A/2024/630239
Shri Jadhav Subhash Naik ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.08.2025
Date of Decision : 01.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.02.2024
PIO replied on : 22.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 29.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 17.04.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 16.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"Following information regarding BARC (Vizag) is required:
1. Provide a list of total number of employees with name, designation and employee id working in Civil Engineering Section at present.
2. Provide a list of furnitures and Capital items (new and old) used by the employees in Civil Engineering Section enclosed with the invoices of the same.
3. Provide a list of indents for Computers, Printers & other Accessories made for Civil Engineering Section since last 15 years. Enclose copy of all invoices of the computers, Printers & other Accessories purchased for the Civil Engineering Section since last 15 years.
4. Provide a list of assigning computers (with configurations), printers & Accessories to individuals in civil engineering section with allotment reference number since last 15 years and present condition of those computers, printers & Accessories."
The CPIO, Administrative Officer-III, BARC (V) vide letter dated 22.03.2024 replied as under:-
"1. List is attached as Annexure-I
2. List of furniture and capital items is attached as Annexure-II. Invoices are not available.
3. List is attached as Annexure-III.Page 1 of 3
4. List is attached as Annexure-IV. Allotment reference numbers are not available."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2024. The FAA, Project Director, BARC(V) vide order dated 17.04.2024 held as under:-
"4. AND WHEREAS, the undersigned as the Appellate Authority, BARC(V), under RTI Act, 2005, has called for the records related to this case from the CPIO and it is seen that, the online RTI Application No. BARCV/R/E/24/00014 was received by CPIO on 23.02.2024 and the same was replied vide letter No. BARC(V)/RTI-14/2024/243 dated 22.03.2024 (within the prescribed time limit).
5. AND WHEREAS, on further perusal of the records in connection with the online RTI query, it is confirmed that BARC(V), has not furnish any wrong/suppressed information and has taken a decision in accordance with the available records.
6. AND NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned, upholds the decision conveyed by CPIO, BARC(V) vide his letter No. BARC(V)/RTI-14/2024/243 dated 22.03.2024 and hence, the Appeal preferred by Shri Subhash, stands disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 25.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO, BARC regarding the query at point no.2, 3 and 4 stating as under:
"..At the outset at Sl. No. 2 of his RTI application the applicant had asked for list of furniture and capital items used by Civil Engineering Section. He had not asked for any particular document for assignment of such items to individual Staff and Officers. Therefore, the information provided is as per the request. The applicant had asked for invoices of such items procured in last 15 years. Here it can be said that invoices once paid are docketed and made into vouchers. These have a specific retention period and same is not available. Under RTI Act, 2005, information which is only available can be given; it cannot be generated.
With regard to point No. 3 whatever information was provided to this Public Authority by Civil Engineering Section could be given. BARCF(V) is a project and indenting authorities are spread out in BARC, Visakhapatnam, Mumbai and other places. It is impossible to track or compile all previous invoices. Some items like Computers and accessories are indented in bulk through Directorate of Purchase & Stores (A Unit of DAE) which deals with procurement separately and such invoices are not available with this Public Authority. Out of the materials received against bulk indents, some are given to Civil Engineering Section and some to others. Therefore, only available data could be provided.
With respect to Point No. 4, available information was provided initially in Annexure-4 which includes the name of the users and configuration of machines. BARCF(V) being a Project, Central Inventory Management is not yet introduced and there was no particular assignment order. Point to be noted here is that users are only custodians of the machines provided to them, which, in the interest of the organization, can be changed by In-Charge Section Head/Competent Authority.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.Page 2 of 3
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri VSNVR Krishna Kanth - APIO was present during hearing through video conference.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions and the Respondent additionally placed reliance on the written submission dated 25.07.2025 mentioned hereinabove, furnishing complete information in addition to information already provided from available records.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information available on record with the public authority and defined as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant.
The Respondent is directed to send a complete set of the written submission dated 25.07.2025 with relevant annexures, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. Since the response of the PIO is found appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, 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)