Central Information Commission
Dr.D Dhaya Devdas vs Ministry Of Mines on 26 August, 2011
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/ss/A/2011/000142
Name of Appeal : Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas
Name of Respondent : Indian Bureau of Mines
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2011
ORDER
Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas, the appellant has filed this appeal dated 6.1.2011 before the Commission against the decision of FAA Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore for not providing information on Point No. (b) to (g) to his RTI-request dated 10.11.2010). The matter was earlier heard by the Commission on 12.5.2011, the respondent have failed to attend the hearing. The matter was again scheduled for hearing on 10.8.2011 vide Commission's Interim Order dated 4.7.2011. The appellant was present in person, whereas the respondents were represented by Shri G.K. Jangid, CPIO at NIC videoconferencing facility at Chennai and Shri R.K. Sinha, FAA at NIC videoconferencing facility at Bangaluru.
2. The appellant filed RTI-request dated 10.11.2010 sought following information:
"a) Xerox copies of the mining lease wise Scheme of Mining approval letters for the first 5 years, 2nd five years and 3rd five years where ever applicable for all the mining plans for the placer minerals like Garnet, Ilmenite and Rutile mentioned therein; b) Xerox copies of the evidences from authenticated reports/publications to show that there is any chance for replenishment of buried deposits after mining of the buried deposits, which are located away from the High Tide Line; c) Xerox copies of the evidences to show that after mining of the entire buried deposits shown in the mining plans, there would be replenishment of more minerals than that of the original reserves available n the mining lease area as per the mining plan; d) Xerox copies of justification for increasing the in-situ reserve than that of the mineral reserve originally mentioned in the mining plan; e) Xerox copies of the provisions of Acts and rules under which power is given to IBM to regularize the 2 Case No. CIC/ss/A/2011/000142 issue of transport permits without approval of the scheme of mining; f) Xerox copies of the evidences to show that mineral reserve quantity will go up when the bulk density is taken as 2 instead of 4; and g) Xerox copies of action taken for correcting the reserve covering the 25 Nos. of mining plans approved with the bulk density as 4 in stead of 2."
3. The CPIO vide letter No 656(4)/2005-Mds Vol. 69 dated 26.11.2010 provided information to the appellant as under:
"Item (a): There are 45 approved scheme of mining available in this office for placer deposits. You requested this office to provide the Xerox copies of approval letter, which contains 2 pages for each scheme of mining. It is advised to submit demand draft /postal order of Rs. 180/ @Rs. 2 per page to get it photo copied. It is also to inform you that despite all our efforts, we could not retrieve two scheme of mining files approved in the year 2001.We are still searching the files along with our other important works during parliament session and will provide Xerox copies after retrieval of the same; Items (b), (c), (d) & (f): There are no records available in this office; Item (e) : There is no rule / Act as such; Item (g): The information sought is third party information and hence, denied under sec.8(1)(d) of Right to Information Act, 2005."
4. Aggrieved by the decision of CPIO, the appellant filed first-appeal 11.12.2010 before FAA. The FAA vide order No.274/7/2005-49-SZ/2672 dated 27.12.2010 upheld the reply of CPIO.
5. During the hearing the respondent were directed to furnish their written submissions, which were forwarded to the Commission through e-mail dated 18.8.2011 by the CPIO. The CPIO submitted on Point No. (b), (c) (d) and (f): - no records are available in the office. The CPIO has no idea where the information may be available. On Point (e):
- There is no Rule/ Act as such linking transport permits issued by State DGM and mining plan approved by IBM/ State DGM. Therefore, regularization of issue of transport permit without approval of the scheme of mining does not arise; and on Point (g): - The information sought was ambiguous question itself and specific information was not demanded. Specific details i.e. name of mine, owner etc. of 25 nos. approved mining plan not provided by the appellant and it is very difficult to collect and check particular mining plans without specific knowledge. No action taken report is available in the office and it cannot be deduced.3 Case No. CIC/ss/A/2011/000142
6. After hearing the parties and on perusal of submissions of respondents, the Commission is of the considered view that requisite information permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant.
The matter is accordingly disposed of at Commission's end.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 26.8.2011 Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas, President, Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries, 1A, Prasad Street, Sethapathy Nagar, Velachery, Chennai-600042.
The CPIO, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, Indian Bureau of Mines, C4A, Rajaji Bhavan, Chennai-400090.
The First Appellate Authority, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, Indian Bureau of Mines, No. 29, Industrial Suburb, Goraguntepalya, Tumkur Road, Bangalore.