Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

N Pauldurai @ Perumal vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 22 April, 2019

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका

                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई   द ली,   New Delhi - 110067



ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2018/141465


N Pauldurai @ Perumal                                         ... अपीलकता /Appellant


                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम


1. CPIO, Department of Atomic                              ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
   Energy, Mumbai.

2. CPIO, Ministry of Mines,
   Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 30.04.2018              FA      : 18.05.2018             SA     : 26.06.2018
CPIO : 14.05.2018 (RTI                                         Hearing : 07.03.2019 and
                              FAO : 19.06.2018
transfer)                                                      11.04.2019


                                      ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai seeking information pertaining to the percentage of monazite allowed in the export consignment of Garnet and Ilmenite fixed by the Government of India or any other agency along with a copy of the notification fixing the percentage of monazite.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has incorrectly transferred the RTI application to the Ministry of Mines as the information sought for should be available with the Department of Atomic Energy. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for to him.

Hearing on 07.03.2019:

3. Shri K.S. Mahadevan, the appellant's advocate and the respondent Ms. Rima Puri, Section Officer, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi were present in person. The respondent Shri Krishnakumar V, PIO and Under Secretary (I&M), Dept. of Atomic Energy, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video- conferencing.

4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO has incorrectly transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, Ministry of Mines as the information sought for should be available with the Department of Atomic Energy. The appellant stated that the PIO, DAE, vide letter dated 29.01.2019, had stated that there was no clarity on the threshold value of monazite quantity/percentage of monazite allowed in the export consignment of Garnet and Ilmenite fixed by the Govt. of India, which implied that the DAE was aware as to whether there was a threshold or not. Further, export of Garnet and Ilmenite had been taking place even before the issuance of notification dated 21.08.2018 by Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), M/o Commerce and Industry canalizing the export of Beach Sand Minerals (BSM) through Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL). The appellant clarified that he wanted to know whether, as on the date of the RTI application, the Atomic Minerals Directorate, Department of Atomic Energy or Government of India had fixed a Page 2 of 7 threshold value of monazite quantity/percentage of monazite in the export of Garnet and Ilmenite. Further, in his view, this information should have been available with the respondent authority.

5. The respondent from DAE submitted that the information sought by the appellant was not available with DAE at the time of receipt of the RTI application. Hence, the RTI application was transferred vide letter dated 14.05.2018 by the CPIO under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, for furnishing information to the appellant, directly. The respondent, however, sought some more time to make written submissions in the matter as to whether the percentage for export of monazite allowed in the export of Garnet is fixed in consultation with the Department of Atomic Energy as well as regarding the transfer of RTI application by the CPIO, DAE to the Ministry of Mines. The respondent further submitted that the appellant has been informed vide letter dated 29.01.2019 that when the RTI application was received during May 2018, there was no clarity about the threshold value of the Monazite quantity allowed in the export consignment of Garnet and Ilmenite fixed by the Govt. of India. Subsequently, DGFT has issued the notification dated 21.08.2018 designating IREL, a PSU under Dept. of Atomic Energy, as State Trading Enterprise (STE) for canalizing the export of BSM, a copy of which has also been provided to the appellant. Further, 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.

6. The respondent from Ministry of Mines submitted that no such information regarding the percentage of Monazite allowed in the export consignment of Garnet and Ilmenite fixed by the Govt. of India is available with Page 3 of 7 the Ministry. Hence, the appellant's RTI application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, DGFT vide letter dated 17.05.2018 for providing necessary information to the appellant, directly.

Interim Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, accedes to the request of the respondent and adjourns the matter to 11.04.2019 at 1.00 pm. Hearing on 11.04.2019:

8. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent Ms. Rima Puri, Section Officer, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi was present in person. The respondent Shri Krishnakumar V, CPIO and Under Secretary (I&M), Dept. of Atomic Energy, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video-conferencing.

9. The respondent from DAE submitted that the records relating to the RTI application have been traced after a thorough search of the Department's records. He added that under the Ilmenite (Control of Export) Order, 1953 issued vide Gazette Notification dated 14.08.1953, licences 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 percent of monazite. The respondent further submitted that the Report of High Level Committee, Government of India, Planning Commission dated 22.12.2006, which is available in public domain had also recommended enhancement of the aforesaid limit. The respondent, however, could not explain the reason for transferring the RTI application dated 30.04.2018 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi vide letter dated Page 4 of 7 14.05.2018 despite the fact that the information sought for was available with the Department of Atomic Energy. The respondent clarified that the RTI application was transferred vide letter dated 14.05.2018 by the then CPIO Shri T.G. Raveendran (presently working at Directorate of Purchase & Stores, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai).

10. The respondent from Ministry of Mines submitted that the RTI application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, DGFT vide letter dated 17.05.2018 by Ms. V. Jayanthi, the then CPIO and Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi. The respondent, however, could not furnish any clarification regarding the said transfer of the RTI application.

Decision:

11. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of all the parties and perusing the records, notes that the information sought for i.e. the percentage of monazite allowed in the export consignment of Garnet and Ilmenite fixed by the Government of India or any other agency, was available with the DAE. Yet, Shri T.G. Raveendran, the then CPIO and Under Secretary, DAE, Mumbai instead of providing the information sought for, transferred the RTI application dated 30.04.2018 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi vide letter dated 14.05.2018. The Commission, thus, finds that Shri T.G. Raveendran, the then CPIO obstructed in furnishing the information sought for to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to Shri T.G. Raveendran, the then CPIO and Under Secretary, DAE, Mumbai for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.

Shri Krishnakumar V, CPIO and Under Secretary (I&M), Dept. of Atomic Energy, Mumbai shall ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Shri T.G. Raveendran, the then CPIO and Under Secretary, DAE, Mumbai.

12. The Commission also directs the CPIO, DAE, Mumbai to provide complete and correct information to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

13. The Commission also notes that the then Secretary, Ministry of Mines was one of the members of the High Level Committee on National Mineral Policy. Therefore, the said report must have been available in the records of Ministry of Mines, New Delhi. The Commission further observes that Ms. V. Jayanthi, the then CPIO and Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi instead of transferring the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, DGFT vide letter dated 17.05.2018, should have provided the information sought for to the appellant. The Commission, thus, finds that Ms. V. Jayanthi, the then CPIO and Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi also obstructed in furnishing the information sought for to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to Ms. V. Jayanthi, the then CPIO and Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against her. Ms. Rima Puri, Section Officer, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi shall ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Ms. V. Jayanthi, the then CPIO and Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi.

14. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

15. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागव)व) Chief Information Commissioner (मु यसू यसूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 22.04.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Atomic Energy, Anushakti Bhawan, CSM Marg, Mumbai- 400001.

2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi- 110001.

3. Shri N Pauldurai @ Perumal Page 7 of 7