Central Information Commission
S Krishnamoorthy vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 27 September, 2019
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/DOATE/A/2018/147993
S. Krishnamoorthy ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Department of Atomic ...प्रनतवािी /Respondent
Energy, Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.05.2018 FA : 09.06.2018 SA : 24.07.2018
CPIO : 31.05.2018 FAO : 12.07.2018 Hearing : 14.08.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Public Information Officer, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) seeking information on four points namely (i) information regarding the percentage of monazite allowed in the export consignment of Garnet and Ilmenite fixed by the Government of India or DAE or AMD or any other agency along with the copy of the Notification fixing the percentage of monazite, (ii) after dispensing monazite test certificate system for export of Garnet or Ilmenite, whether DAE or any other agency fix up the monazite content eligible for export for Garnet or Ilmenite, (iii) if yes, furnish the copy of Page 1 of 5 the fix up notification and the gazette notification and (iv) if no notification is fixed up, whether DAE would fix up the quantity and make arrangement to implement the same by introducing the monazite test certification again.
2. The CPIO replied to the RTI application by stating that the reply to Query no. 1 has been transferred to PIO, DGFT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The respondent in response to query nos. 2 to 4 stated that the information sought by the appellant was already sought by him vide RTI application dated 30.03.2018, which was duly responded by the respondent vide letter dated 11.04.2018 and the appellant has repeated the RTI request, which is not permissible as per the decision No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-AS dated 25.06.2014 passed by CIC. In this regard, the respondent denied information to the appellant. The FAA relying upon the decision passed by CIC dated 23.05.2013 in the matter of Sh. Alok Shukla vs. CPIO, SEBI held that the CPIO cannot create new records in order to address the specific queries of the appellant, and concurred with the action of the CPIO of transferring the RTI application and not responding to the similar queries responded earlier by the CPIO.
Hearing:
3. Shri K.S. Mahadevan Advocate representing the appellant was present in person. Shri T.S. Sunil Kumar, Head (MPG) and CPIO, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai and Dr. Eric D'Cruz, Scientific Officer (H), AMD, DAE were heard through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that instead of providing information on point no. 1, the PIO, DAE vide letter dated 30.05.2018 had transferred the RTI application to CPIO, Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Ministry of Page 2 of 5 Commerce and Industry, New Delhi who is not concerned with the information sought for. He added that percentage of monazite allowed in the export consignment of Garnet and Ilmenite has to be fixed by the DAE or AMD and not by any other agency. Hence, the RTI application was wrongly transferred to the CPIO, DGFT. Further, information on point nos. 2 to 4 of the RTI application was denied on the grounds that similar information has been sought vide RTI application dated 30.03.2018.
5. The respondent submitted that under the Ilmenite (control of Export) Order, 1953 vide Gazette notification dated August 14, 1953, Licenses need to be issued for export of Ilmenite subject to the condition that samples of Ilmenite to be exported had been examined and certified to contain less than 0.1 percent of monazite to prevent clandestine export of monazite. This limit was subsequently enhanced to 0.25 per cent of monazite. This is mentioned in National Mineral Policy, the report of High level Committee, Government of India, Planning Commission on December22, 2006, page 169-170 & 179, which is available in public domain (planningcommission.gov.in/reports/genrep/ rep_nmp.pdf). In response to a query, the respondent admitted that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) issued a notification dated 21.08.2018 designating Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL), a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) under DAE, as State Trading Enterprise (STE) for canalizing the export of BSM. In view of this, the RTI application was transferred to DGFT. He also admitted that as per the SOP approved by DAE on 06.09.2018 in order to comply with the aforesaid notification, the percentage of permissible limit for export of BSM consignment is 0.25% Monazite equivalent. The respondent asserted that the information sought for vide point nos. 2 to 4 of the RTI application has already been provided to the appellant in Page 3 of 5 response to his RTI application dated 30.03.2018 vide letter dated 18.04.2018. Further the CIC vide decision No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-AS dated 25.06.2014 had observed that repetitive RTI application is not permissible.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that though the DGFT had issued a notification dated 21.08.2018 designating Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL), a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) under DAE, as State Trading Enterprise (STE) for canalizing the export of BSM, as per the SOP approved by DAE on 06.09.2018, the percentage of permissible limit for export of BSM consignment is 0.25% Monazite equivalent. Hence, it can be inferred that the information sought for was available with the DAE. Yet, the CPIO instead of providing the information sought for, transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, DGFT vide letter dated 30.05.2018. The Commission, therefore, finds that the CPIO had obstructed in furnishing the information sought for to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, recommends, under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, disciplinary action against Shri T.S. Sunil Kumar, Head (MPG) and CPIO, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai under the service rules applicable to him. The Commission also directs the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai to ensure that disciplinary action is initiated against Shri T.S. Sunil Kumar, Head (MPG) and CPIO, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai under intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.Page 4 of 5
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 26.09.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Secretary Department of Atomic Energy Anushakti Bhawan, Chartrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg, Mumbai - 400001
2. The First Appellate Authority, Department of Atomic Energy, Anushakti Bhawan, Chartrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg, Mumbai - 400001
3. The Central Public Information Officer, Department of Atomic Energy, Anushakti Bhawan, Chartrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg, Mumbai - 400001
4. Mr. S. Krishnamoorthy Page 5 of 5