Central Information Commission
Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas vs Addl. Secretary-I&M & Faa, Dept. Of ... on 20 October, 2008
Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00913-SM dated 25.06.2007
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 20.10.2008
Appellant - Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas
Respondents - Addl. Secretary-I&M & FAA, Dept. of Atomic Energy
(DAE)
ORDER
This is the second appeal filed by Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas against the order of the Additional Secretary (I&M) and First Appellate Authority in the DAE, dated 06.06.2007. Though this appeal was received in the Commission on 04.08.2007 it came to us on transfer in September, 2008. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2. Dr. Devadas had approached the CPIO in the DAE on 14.05.2007. In connection with a complaint he had filed in 2003 he had asked for the following information:-
(i) What action the Department of Atomic Energy had taken to find out the truth?
(ii) Whether the above said quantities of Ilmenite sold to them are correct?
(iii) Please furnish the copies of the report obtained during the investigation.
3. In reply to this request, the CPIO wrote to the Appellant on 09.05.2007 and informed that the complaint dated 29.01.2003, referred to by the Appellant in his original application, had been addressed to various authorities including in the Government of Tamil Nadu and was regarding illegal mining. She further stated that since the subject matter came within the purview of the State Government, no action had been taken on that complaint in the DAE regarding the inspection of the mining activities of the two companies about whom the Appellant had mentioned in his original application. The CPIO informed that a team of officials from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board had carried out an inspection to examine specific issues relating to radiological safety aspects and that the team had confirmed that these companies were not engaged in separation of monazite from beach sands.
4. Dissatisfied with this reply, Dr. Devadas filed his first appeal before the Additional Secretary (I&M) and First Appellate Authority on 25.05.2007. The Additional Secretary and the First Appellate Authority passed his order on 06.06.2007. In this order, he upheld the decision of the CPIO that the subject matter of the complaint being that of illegal mining, the same came within the purview of the State Government which was responsible for issue of the mining lease and no action was to be taken by the DAE.
5. It is against this order that Dr. D. Devadas filed his second appeal dated 25.06.2007 which was received in the Commission on 04.08.2007. Later, on 17.09.2007 the Appellant sent a communication submitting, some additional grounds for his appeal. In this appeal, he has reiterated the details of the complaint he and some other had filed on 29.01.2003 and wanted to have the same information which he had asked for in the original application.
6. In his appeal, he has alleged that he wants this information in respect of the alleged violation of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. On scrutiny of the orders of both the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority, we find that there is no reference to violation of the Atomic Energy Act alleged by the Appellant. Both the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority have denied the information on the ground that the original complaint of the Appellant/Applicant was about illegal mining and that fell squarely in the domain of the State Government of Tamil Nadu and that the DAE had nothing to do with it. The order of the First Appellate Authority does not make reference to any violation of Atomic Energy Act as alleged by the Appellant. The real issue in this case is that if the sale of certain minerals by private parties is to be regulated under the Atomic Energy Act and if the sales by some companies alleged to have been made in violation of the Atomic Energy Act is indeed true. Once this angle is considered, it would be clear if the Appellant's original complaint was regarding illegal mining or about the violation of the Atomic Energy Act or both. Since the information desired by him flows from his complaint of 2003, without a detailed consideration of the above angle of violation of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, the denial of information seems unjustified.
7. Therefore, we remand this case to the First Appellate Authority with the direction that he should reconsider this case after giving adequate opportunity to the Appellant and consider if the issues raised in the original complaint had an angle of violation of the Atomic Energy Act and, in that case whether he had the right to get the information he had asked for. This should be completed within 15 working days from the receipt of this order and compliance reported to us.
8. The Appellant will have the right to came of this Commission again if he is dissatisfied with the order of the First Appellate Authority.
9. The appeal is thus disposed off. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar