Central Information Commission
Meenaxee Padhy vs Petroleum And Explosives Safety ... on 21 February, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602434/00105
File no.: CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602434
In the matter of:
Meenaxee Padhy
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Controller of Explosives
Petroleum and Explosives safety organization
A Block, 5th Floor, CGO Complex,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur - 440 06, Maharashtra
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 02/01/2017 CPIO replied on : 28/03/2017 First appeal filed on : 06/03/2017
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Complaint dated : 08/05/2017 Date of Hearing : 18/02/2019 Date of Decision : 18/02/2019 The following were present: Complainant: Present
Respondent: Shri S K Mishra, Controller of Explosives & present CPIO alongwith J Sarkar, Dy. Chief Controller& the then CPIO, Petroleum and Explosives safety organization Information Sought:
The complainant through her RTI application sought information on 17 points as under:1
1. Details regarding the licences issued to the Manufacturers, Converters, Stevedores, Sellers, Possessors, Importers and Exporters of Ammonium Nitrate in India as per the Rule 5 of Ammonium Nitrate Rule 2012 as per the format given by the Complainant in her RTI application.
2. Copy of directives issued by The Chief Controller of Explosives in accordance with Ammonium Nitrate Rule 2012, to all the approved Ports in India to handle both import and export of the Ammonium Nitrate.
3. Details regarding standard of packaging for Ammonium Nitrate as confirmed by The Chief Controller of Explosives and/or Bureau of Indian Standards as mentioned in Ammonium Nitrate Rule 2012, Rule 8 (c).
4. Other related information.
Grounds for Complaint:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Complainant and Respondents during Hearing:
The appellant stated that an insufficient reply has been provided to her by the CPIO. She further submitted that she wanted to know whether the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 are being followed or not and hence wanted the sought for information.
The Respondent stated that an appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant on 08.03.2017 via email and then on 28.03.2017 through ordinary post.
Observation:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it was noted by the Commission that although a proper reply was provided to the Appellant but the same was delayed by about 01 month and 26 days for which a warning needs to be issued to the then CPIO for failing to follow the statutory time limit. The Commission also noted that the Complainant has raised hypothetical questions to know whether the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 are being followed or not and the reply of the CPIO is apt as the same are outside the purview of the RTI application.
Decision:2
The Commission finds no scope for intervention in the reply provided by the CPIO based on a perusal of the facts on record. The Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO. However, a warning is issued to the then CPIO, J Sarkar for such a delayed reply. He should ensure that each and every RTI application is replied to within the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act and if such a mistake is repeated in future, more stringent action will be taken against him.
The Complaint is accordingly disposed of.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3