Central Information Commission
Meenaxee Padhy vs Petroleum And Explosives Safety ... on 26 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602450+
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602436+
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602459+
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602460+
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/PAESO/C/2017/602461
Meenaxee Padhy
....िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
J. Sarkar
The then CPIO of PESO, Nagpur
O/o Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives,
Door No. 7-20-13, Kirlampudy Lauout,
Visakhapatnam - 530017. ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 20.03.2017
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : 05.05.2017
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 10.05.2017
Date of hearing : 27.08.2018, 25.10.2018
Facts:
The complaint vide RTI application dated 20.03.2017 sought information on six points as under:
1. Details of public authority to verify and certify the system of implementation of marking in conspicuous indelible characters of stamping or painting on each bag of Ammonium Nitrate as required under Rule 19(1) of Ammonium Nitrate Rule 2012.
2. Copy of verification report of marking of each bag in conspicuous indelible characters by stamping or painting as required under Rule 9(1) of the Ammonium Nitrate Rule 2012.1
3. Other related information.
The CPIO's reply and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order are not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the complainant filed complaint under the provision of Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 10.05.2017.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order Complainant : Present Respondent : Shri S.D Mishra (Nagpur) Controller of Explosives cum CPIO Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization Shri A.P. Singh, PIO from Delhi.
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had received the RTI application dated 20.03.2017 on 24.03.2017 and provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 03.05.2017. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The complainant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the complainant on point nos. 1, 2 & 6 of the above stated RTI application which is deplorable for which a show cause notice needs to be issued to the then respondent CPIO.
In view of the above, a Show Cause notice is issued to the then respondent CPIO u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
Why proper reply was not provided to the complainant on the above mentioned points.
The explanation to the above stated Show Cause notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this 2 order. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name, address, mobile no., present place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent CPIO should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
It was also noted by the Commission that the respondent authority in its reply on point nos. 3, 4 & 5 of the above stated RTI application had stated that information as sought by the complainant was not available in the document form which stated that the organization did not maintain any record of the inspection or random checking carried out by them at different places, particularly in the districts of Jharkhand, Bihar, Maharashtra and Odhisha. This means that no inspection had been undertaken by the organization so far to oversee the nature of implementation of the provision as envisaged u/r 9(1) of the Ammonium Nitrate Rule, 2012. This reply also seems to be deplorable that no inspection had been done by the Nagpur based and Explosives Safety Petroleum organization which they were duty bound to do.
The Commission is constrained to issue a direction u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Udhyog Bhawan, New Delhi to send a report to the Commission containing number of field inspections done by the organisation during the last two years.
The registry of this bench is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udhog Bhawan, New Delhi for his personal knowledge and follow up action in the matter.
With the observation and direction as above, the case is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.3
Adjunct Order : 25.10.2018 Based on submission
Explanation from Sh. J Sarkar, Controller of Explosives/ CPIO of PESO-
• He submitted that presently, he is posted as Controller of Explosives in the O/o Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh and the explanations were filed as per the documents available with him.
• During his tenure as Controller of Explosives, Nagpur he was assigned to act as nodal Officer under RTI Act 2005, as well as CPIO, PESO, Nagpur by the Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur in addition to his other official work.
• The RTI application bearing registration number PAESO/R/2017/50013 from Smt. Meenaxee Padhy was received by him through online system on 20.03.2017.
• Being the nodal officer of PESO, Nagpur, the application was forwarded online to the CPIO, Nagpur i.e., him on the same day i.e. 20.03.2017. • The online application was processed by the dealing assistant and submitted to the CPIO on 24.03.2017.
• The CPIO was not the custodian of the information sought by the applicant. Thus in accordance with Section 5(4) of RTI Act, 2005 assistance of the dealing office was sought for proper discharge of duties under the said Act.
• The physical file was forwarded on 04.04.2017 to the dealing officer with the request to provide necessary information if available to the CPIO (copy of note sheet enclosed).
• The CPIO and the deemed CPIO carefully assessed the RTI application and arrived at an opinion that the information was not available in any material form as specified under the definition of information under Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005.4
• A reply was filed online by the CPIO on 20.04.2017 instead of on 03.05.2017 as stated by the present CPIO during the hearing (copy enclosed).
• The CPIO and deemed CPIO could not retrieve the information and the application was disposed of within the specified period under section -7 of RTI ACT, 2005.
• Aggrieved with the reply, the applicant Smt. Meenaxee Padhy filed online first appeal on 05.05.2017 and the undersigned, being the concerned nodal Officer, forwarded the appeal online to the Appellate Authority on 11.05.2017.
• The Appellate Authority sought comment on 22.05.2017 from the CPIO i.e. him. As per the action history of the RTI appeal, the CPIO furnished comments online on 08.06.2017.
• The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal stating that the reply of the CPIO was correct and relevant under the scope of the RTI Act, 2005. • On careful assessment of the RTI application, the CPIO, the deemed CPIO and the Appellate Authority working in the same organization and office arrived at a common conclusion that the information sought by the applicant are not available in any material form and the application was disposed of accordingly.
In regard to the above, he submitted following few facts about the RTI applicant-
• Smt. Meenaxee padhy filed 13 online RTI applications and 3 online first appeals between 02.01.2017 and 01.05.2018 seeking information pertaining to the same matter i.e compliance of Rule-9 under the Ammonium Nitrate Rules-2012. All the applications were disposed of within the time frame and under the scope of the RTI Act, 2005. • Smt. Meenaxee Padhy, the appellant in the present case had also submitted several grievances/complaints through offline and online 5 CPGRAM mode on the same matter. All the grievances/complaints were addressed by the PESO, Nagpur within the scheduled time frame. • As per the directions of the DIPP, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi, Ms. Meenaxee Padhy was called for a presentation to the PESO, Nagpur. Ms. Meenaxee Padhy head and Shri M K Padhy Director M/s M & M Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Thane gave presentation on their product "Bar-Coding & Allied IT Tools" on 29.05.2017 in the presence of officers from PESO, Nagpur and officers from NIC, Nagpur. A copy of note on the presentation is enclosed which is self explanatory. • Ms. Meenaxee Padhy has made several communications including 29 emails and otherwise since 2016 to the Hon'ble PMO, Hon'ble Minister for Commerce & Industry, Cabinet Secretary, Dep. Of Industrial Policy and promotions & PESO alleging non-compliance of the Rule 9 of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012. The organisation PESO has replied to all her communications/complaints/grievances. The Jt. Chief Controller of Explosives (HOD) vide letter no. D-
18018/04/2013/PESO/SETT(TECH) dated 11.05.2017 addressed to the DIPP furnished necessary comments of the PESO for briefing the Hon'ble Minister for Commerce & Industry suitably in this matter, which is self explanatory.
• All the communications/complaints/grievances made by Ms. Meenaxee Padhy including the present RTI applications target the following firms handling Ammonium Nitrate in huge quantities.
1. M/s Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., Pune
2. M/s Sravan Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd, Visakhapatnam
3. M/s Smartchem Technologies, Srikakula, A.P. • Ms. Meenaxee, M/s M & M Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Thane is the supplier of "Barcode printing equipments & Allied IT Tools" which are used over any packed commodity. The firm intends to promote their 6 product through PESO for barcode printing over Ammonium Nitrate packages among Ammonium Nitrate manufacturers. • The officials of M/s Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd (presently known as M/s Smartchem Technologies) were called by the Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur on 05.07.2017 to make detailed presentation on the compliance of Rule-9 of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012. A note on the same meeting and consequent discussion held was enclosed and the concluding note is self explanatory.
Decision:
The above explanation of Shri J. Sarkar, the then respondent CPIO, Controller of Explosives of PESO, Nagpur was perused. In the said explanation, Shri J. Sarkar, the then respondent CPIO wanted to justify that the reply by him was within time, just and proper but the fact remains that the RTI application which is filed online on 20.03.2017 was disposed of casually and without providing information sought for to the appellant. Finally, the reply provided by the CPIO was that no information was available. In the said explanation also he wanted to submit a negative picture of Smt. Meenaxee Padhy stating that she was a habitual RTI maker and that she was directed to obtain information about competing firms. Instead of finding fault with the information sought for ,Shri J. Sarkar, the then respondent CPIO should have utilised his knowledge and time for providing whichever information was available with him to the appellant in time.
In view of this, Shri J. Sarkar, the then respondent CPIO, Controller of Explosives of PESO, Nagpur needs to be issued a warning.
The then respondent CPIO, is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should have been provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in 7 future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said application.
The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against him by the Commission.
The present respondent CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this warning to the then CPIO and a copy of the service of the above said warning is to be submitted to the Commission within 10 days of the receipt of the order.
With the above warning, the show cause proceeding is treated as closed. Copies of the order are to be sent to all the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ भ टाचाय)
टाचाय)
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
8