Central Information Commission
Er Dr M Senthil Kumar vs Nlc India Ltd. on 30 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448
Er.Dr.M Senthil Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
NLC India Limited Central
Public Information office,
PRO office, Block 02
Neyveli 607801 Cuddallore,
Tamilnadu .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.03.2026
Date of Decision : 30.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.08.2024
CPIO replied on : 18.09.2024
First appeal filed on : 16.10.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.10.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 29.01.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.08.2024(offline) seeking the following information:CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 1 of 11
"As per The Right to Information Act, 2005 and its subsequent amendments in 2019 & 2023, kindly furnish the following informations at the earliest to preserve the Earth against pollution.
1. Please furnish the details and order copies of NGT cases filed against NLC and NLCIL and its subsidiaries.
2. Whether all the recommendations of NGT orders were compiled. If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
3. How the lawyers are fixed and their remuneration for NGT cases? Whether any qualification criteria was adopted while fixing the lawyers? Whether qualified Environmental Engineer was involved while deriving the qualification criteria as per water Act, Air Act & Enviromental protection acts and their amendments? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
4. Kindly furnish the legal expenditure statement of all NGT cases?
5. What is status of Health Survey in and around Neyveli as per NGT recommendation?
6. Who are all the members of Health survey ? What is the time line given for Health survey? Why the recommendation of Health survey by NGT was not started in TIME by legal department ? Whether the compliance of NGT recommendations are submitted? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
7. The camera footage of chennai guest houses, Neyveli guest houses like Lignite house, Neyveli house, Block 25 and Block 12 guest houses, concerned offices etc. for the past one and half years.
8. Whether half yearly EC compliance statement of red category and Schedule 17 category of all industrial units of vetted by legal department? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
9. Whether the head of Corporate Environmental Cell at the level of Senior executive (G8 and above ) are qualified Environmental Engineers as per EC conditions or not. Kindly furnish the details for the last 5 years. Whether this EC condition is followed or not? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
10. Whether the Mines 2 and Barsingsor / Rajasthan red category units and schedule 17 units are having valid EC as per EIA notifications? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
11. What are all the penalties as per Environmental Acts, if running a red category unit and schedule 17 units without valid EC?
12. What is the status of statutory Environmental auditing and biological survey taken by Sustainable Development cell (SDC)? What is the time frame given by MoC and MoEF & CC to complete the environmental auditing? Why SDC was purposely separated from CEC?CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 2 of 11
Whether SDC was headed by qualified Environmental Engineer as per MoC minutes?
What is the expenditure incurred by SDC and how the expenditure was spent? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
Who are all the advisors in NLC India Limited and its subsidiaries? What are all the assignments given to them? What is the remuneration and other facilities given for them? Whether compliance of assignments given to the advisors are verified by CVO before giving extension for them?
13. How many advisors are proposed by CTO/ civil for the past 5 years and the relevant details of e-office note?
14. What are all the conditions of CTO of industrial units of NLC IL and its subsidiaries? Whether Quarterly compliance were discussed at HQ level meeting? How many HQ level meetings were conducted as per the minutes of MOC for the last one year and the reports may kindly be furnished?
15. Whether TNPCB directives of posting a qualified Environmental Engineer at Executive Director ( E9) was done for better environmental compliance of highly polluting industrial units (red category units and schedule 17 units) to the tune of 3500 tonnes of CO 2 per hour?"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.09.2024 stating as under:
"Information sought:
01. Please furnish the details and order copies of NGT cases filed against NLC and NLCIL and its subsidiaries.
Information provided: 01.
The orders Copies of the NGT cases are available in public domain. Information sought:
02. Whether all the recommendations of NGT orders were compiled. If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
Information provided: 02.
The information sought is interrogatory in nature. Seeking information in interrogative nature does not fall under the ambit of the definition of "information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence information sought could not be provided.
Relevant section is reproduced below for reference:
Section 2(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 3 of 11 electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; Information sought:
03. How the lawyers are fixed and their remuneration for NGT cases? Whether any qualification criteria was adopted while fixing the lawyers? Whether qualified Environmental.
Engineer was involved while deriving the qualification criteria as per water Act, Air Act & Environmental protection acts and their amendments? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
Information provided: 03.
The information sought is interrogatory in nature. Seeking information in interrogative nature does not fall under the ambit of the definition of "information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence information sought could not be provided.
Information sought:
04. Kindly furnish the legal expenditure statement of all NGT cases? Information provided: 04.
The information sought is vague, not clear and specific, hence information sought could not be provided.
Information sought:
05. What is status of Health Survey in and around Neyveli as per NGT recommendation?
Information provided: 05.
Health survey work is under Review.
Information sought:
6.(a) Who are all the members of Health survey? What is the time line given for Health survey?
(b) Why the recommendation of Health survey by NGT was not started in TIME by legal department?
(c). Why the recommendation of Health survey by NGT was not started in TIME by legal department?
(d). Whether the compliance of NGT recommendations are submitted? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why? Information provided: 06.
(a) Dr.P Kalyani and Team Professor and Head, Department of Community Medicine, Govt. Medical College, Cuddalore.
The time line given by health survey is 13.09.2024.
CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 4 of 11(b,c&d): The information sought is interrogatory in nature. Seeking information in interrogative nature does not fall under the ambit of the definition of "information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence information sought could not be provided.
Information sought:
07. The camera footage of Chennai guest houses, Neyveli guest houses like Lignite house. Neyveli house, Block 25 and Block 12 guest houses, concerned offices etc. for the past one and half years. Information provided: 07.
None of the Guest Houses operated by NLCIL, in Neyveli are provided with CCTУ cameras until now.
Information sought:
08. Whether half yearly EC compliance statement of red category and Schedule 17 category of all industrial units of vetted by legal department? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
Information provided: 08.
The information sought is interrogatory in nature. Seeking information in interrogative nature does not fall under the ambit of the definition of "information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence information sought could not be provided.
Information sought:
09. Whether the head of Corporate Environmental Cell at the level of Senior executive (G8 and above) are qualified Environmental Engineers as per EC conditions or not. Kindly furnish the details for the last 5 year. Whether this EC condition is followed or not? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
Information provided: 09.
There is no specific EC condition for the qualification of the Head of Corporate Environment Cell.
The second part of the query is interrogatory in nature Seeking information in interrogative nature does not fall under the ambit of the definition of "information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence information sought could not be provided.
Information sought:
10. Whether the Mines 2 and Barsingsar/Rajasthan red category units and schedule 17 units are having valid EC as per EIA notifications? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
Information provided: 10.
CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 5 of 11Barsingsar Mines has valid EC as per the EIA notification which was granted by MOEFC vide EC no J-150012 /23/97-IA II (M) dated 20.12.2022 under EIA notification 1994..
Information sought:
11. What are all the penalties as per Environmental Acts, if running a red category unit and schedule 17 units without valid EC?
Information provided: 11.
The information sought is not available in any material format. Hence, information sought could not be furnished. Information sought:
12. (a) What is the status of statutory Environmental auditing and biological survey taken by Sustainable Development cell (SDC)? B
(b) What is the time frame given by MoC and MoEF & CC to complete the environmental auditing?
(c) Why SDC was purposely separated from CEC?
(d) Whether SDC was headed by qualified Environmental Engineer as per MoC minutes?
(0) What is the expenditure incurred by SDC and how the expenditure was spent? If so, please furnish the details. If not, why?
(f) Who are all the advisors in NLC India Limited and its subsidiaries?
(g) What are all the assignments given to them?
(h) What is the remuneration and other facilities given for them?
(i) Whether compliance of assignments given to the advisors are verified by CVO before giving extension for them?
Information provided: 12.
(a) Environment auditing study by third party agency was awarded to M/S CEH Annamali Universituy. The field studies have been completed and the final reports have to be submitted by the university
(b)There is no time frame given by MoC and MoEF & CC to complete the above environmental auditing.
(c)Reasons and clarification cannot be sought under RTI Act, 2005, as the same will not qualify for the definition of information as per section 2 (t) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence information sought could not be furnished.
(d) The SDC has been functioning under the Executive nominated by the management from tape to time.
(0)The expenditure incurred by SDC is only through the salary of one whole time executive and the salary is dispensed through bank payment. (f to i) The information sought is not specific to any type of advisor. Hence the information sought could not be furnished However, regarding assignments, CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 6 of 11 remuneration and other facilities etc, the information seeker can verify the same in the career page of NLCIL Information sought:
13. How many advisors are proposed by CTO/ civil for the past 5 years and the relevant details of e office note?
Information provided: 13.
The information sought is interrogatory in nature. Seeking information in interrogative nature does not fall under the ambit of the definition of "information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence information sought could not be provided.
Information sought:
14. What are all the conditions of CTO of industrial units of NLC IL and its subsidiaries? Whether Quarterly compliance were discussed at HQ level meeting? How many HQ level meetings were conducted as per the minutes of MOC for the last one year and the reports may kindly be furnished?
Information provided: 14.
The information sought is interrogatory in nature. Seeking information in interrogative nature does not fall under the ambit of the definition of "information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence information sought could not be provided.
Information sought:
15. Whether TNPCB directives of posting a qualified Environmental Engineer at Executive Director (E9) was done for better environmental compliance of highly polluting industrial units (red category units and schedule 17 units) to the tune of 3500 tones of CO 2 per hour?
Information provided: 15.
The information sought is interrogatory in nature. Seeking information in interrogative nature does not fall under the ambit of the definition of "information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence information sought could not be provided."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.10.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 30.10.2024, held as under:
"This is with reference to your appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005 as in reference cited.
You have sought to furnish the information for certain queries by submitting RTI application vide reference 1st cited under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 7 of 11
In this regard, it is informed that your application was duly processed by the CPIO, NLCIL, Neyveli and you were provided with the information sought for by you vide reference 2nd cited.
On receiving reply, you have preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority stating that CPIO not provided the information in the reference 3rd cited which lies before me.
I, the First Appellate Authority went through your appeal called for the entire back papers and examined the whole gamut of the matter afresh. I find that CPIO/NLCIL disposed your application in the right manner and therefore I do not see any reason for issuing further direction on the matter. Further, it is informed that the fresh queries in the appeal indicated for providing reply by you, shall be handled by CPIO/NLCIL. You are advised to make queries to the CPIO/NLCIL, Neyveli accordingly."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present though VC.
Respondent: Shri S. Senguttuvan, CPIO-cum-Chief Manager, attended the hearing through VC.
5. The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua point No. 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 of the RTI Application. He added that in point No. 10 of the RTI Application, the Respondent has only provided information for Barsingsar and has not provided any information for Mines II.
6. The Respondent submitted that a suitable and pointwise reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant by the CPIO vide letter dated 18.09.2024. He added that the information sought by the Appellant on point No. 1 of the RTI Application is available on NGT website. With respect to point No. 2 of the RTI Application, the information sought is interrogatory in nature which does not fall under the ambit of the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. With respect to point No. 4 of the RTI Application, the information sought is vague and non-specific. With respect to point No. 10 of the RTI Application, Mines II and Barsingsar Mines have valid EC as CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 8 of 11 per the EIA notification which was granted by MOEFC vide EC no J-150012 /23/97-IA II (M) dated 20.12.2022 under EIA notification 1994, but somehow, the CPIO did not mention Mines II in his reply. With respect to point No. 11 of the RTI Application, their office does maintain any record in material form.
7. A written submission has been received from Shri S. Senguttuvan, CPIO-
cum-Chief Manager, vide letter dated 11.02.2026, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"1. At the outset, it is humbly submitted that the Central Public Information Officer Under Right to Information Act 2005, in NLC India Limited (herein after called CPIO) has not refused information to the appellant which he is legally entitled to under the provisions and sprit of Right to Information Act, 2005. The facts and circumstances involved in this case are submitted below for better appreciation and disposal of the appeal by this Hon'ble Commission. II. The Respondent humbly submits herein is the Central Public Information Officer under Right to Information Act, 2005, duly nominated by NLC India Limited, a Government of India Enterprises.
III. Details of the Case: Shri M.Senthil Kumar, General Manager(Retd), NLCIL, 35,2nd Circular Road, Jawahar Nagar, Chennai 600 082 has sought information relating to order copies of NGT cases filed against NLC and related information. He had submitted his RTI application dated 09.08.2024 was received by CPIO on 12.08.2024 and the file was numbered as 380/2024 which was communicated to applicant by CPIO. Copy of the application is placed Annexure-l IV. In response to the information sought by the applicant, CPIO had furnished the information with an appeal provision and the address of the First Appellate Authority vide Letter No. NLCIL/RTI/CPIO/380/2024-18, Dated 18.09.2024 as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. (a delay of 6 days to furnish the information) Copy of the reply is placed at Annexure-II.
V. Aggrieved against the information furnished by CPIO, the information seeker preferred his First appeal with First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005, vide his appeal dated 16.10.2024 received on 18.10.2024. Copy of his First Appeal is placed at Annexure-III VI. The First Appellate Authority while disposing the appeal mentioned that "I, First Appellate Authority went through your appeal and called for the entire back papers and examined the whole gamut of matter afresh. I find that CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 9 of 11 CPIO/NLCIL disposed your application in the right manner and therefore I do not see any reason for issuing further direction on the matter", vide Appeal disposal order Letter.No NLCIL/RTI /Appeal-81/ CPIO-392/2024, Dt. 30.10.2024. Copy of Appeal disposal is enclosed at Annexure-IV.
VII The appellant approached the Hon'ble Commission with his appeal. He had requested for information in15-point query and its subsection including a total of 30 points to address. The information to be furnished is to receive not only Environment Cell and also from various units/projects of NLCIL, like Mine-1 & Mine II, PSE, CTO, CCD, Corporate HR, Legal, Barsingsar Unit in Rajasthan etc. In fine there are 8 Units of NLCIL is involved in furnishing the reply. Though CPIO took maximum effort to furnish the reply within timeline the information could not be furnished within the time limit, hence the delay of 6 days may kindly be condoned.
VIII It is submitted that the information seeker is Retired General Manager of NLCIL who was in charge of Corporate Environment Cell. He is familiar with the details and related information of Environment Cell. He was seeking order copies of cases filed against NLCIL by NGT (National Green Tribunal), implementation of recommendations of NGT, for posting of Advisors, posting details of Unit head at Sustainable Development Centre of NLCIL. However, in his Appeal he mentioned that he needs information to Preserve Earth. IX. I, CPIO humbly submit that NLCIL is obtaining statutory permission, clearance, licence or approval from competent authority or statutory body for Mining and Power generation and related activity. Since some of the information sought by information seeker falls under interrogatory nature. The other points which are furnishable under the provisions of the RTI Act, CPIO furnished the information accordingly.
X. The copy of this written submission will be sending to the Appellant as per point 2 of mentioned at Section Officer/Coordination Section Letter.
XI. I, CPIO humbly request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to condone the delay of 6 days (which was unintentional) to furnish the information. The Respondent humbly submits that all the relevant information was furnished to the information seeker as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, this Respondent hereby prays the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to consider the above stated facts to close the second appeal filed by the Appellant and to pass an appropriate order or orders as it deem fit and proper and thus, render justice.""CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 10 of 11
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable and pointwise reply qua the instant RTI Application has been provided by the CPIO based on available records except for point No. 1 and 10 of the RTI Application. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to revisit point No. 1 and 10 of the RTI Application and provide a revised reply by furnishing the relevant URL in respect of the point No. 1 of the RTI Application and by providing the information pertaining to Mines II in respect of the point No. 10 of the RTI Application, to the Appellant, within a period of three weeks form the date of receipt of this order. If the Respondent requires assistance from any other office/officer for compliance with the above directions, the same shall be sought by invoking Section 5 (4) of RTI Act.
9. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasistha) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 Copy To:
The FAA, NLC India Limited office of the Chief General Manager HR Corporate Office, Block 1 Neyveli Cuddallore, Tamil Nadu 607801 CIC/NLCOR/A/2025/605448 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)