Central Information Commission
Syed Khasim Hussain vs Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru) on 21 July, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal No. CIC/HWPMG/A/2016/304677
Appellant: Mr. Syed Khasim Hussain
H.No-14-1-121, SBH Road,
New Poloncha-507115,
Khammam Distt. Andhra Pradesh.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer, DGM (P)
Deptt. Of Atomic Energy, Heavy Water Plant
(Manuguru), Post : Gautami Nagar Mandal,
Aswapuram-507116, District, Khammam
Date of Hearing: 20.07.2017
Dated of Decision: 20.07.2017
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 21.04.2016 seeking copies of the spirometry and audiometry tests which were conducted for the workers of M/s DRIL in the years 2014 and 2015; technical committee report relating to bucket dropping and breakage of haulage ropes (point nos. 2 and 3); enquiry report on his complaint dated 27.06.2015; copy of investigation report with regards to falling of 21 buckets on 23.01.2005 etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 24.05.2016. The appellant filed first appeal dated 01.06.2016. The FAA responded on 02.07.2016. The appellant filed second appeal on 05.09.2016 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not participate in the hearing. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent stated that they have furnished a reply to the appellant (ex-employee of Heavy Water Plant) on 24.05.2016. Further, he stated that 'technical committee' (point nos. 2 and 3) as referred by the appellant was never constituted. Investigation report on metallurgical examination of broken wires and fallen bucket (point no. 6) was submitted to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), Mumbai. From the year 2005 onwards, the old records are retained by the AERB, therefore, with regard to providing information on point no. 6, the AERB may take a view as they are the actual holder of the records.
5. Moreover, as to point no. 7 (replacement of line couplings), he stated that such a record was never created. Since 2005 new couplings are used, so question of Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) does not arise. It is not possible to ascertain the exact figure for no. of couplings replaced as it is picked up from their stock as and when required. It would require extensive compilation of almost 10 years old data from 12 rope sections, wherein each section entails 2- 3 times replacement of couplings every year. It was stated that providing such voluminous information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The respondent pointed out that the appellant has filed 660 nos. of RTI applications on this subject itself in the current year. This has severely impacted on their ability to attend to RTI applications. Discussion/ observation:
6. The respondent should transfer this RTI application on point no. 6 to the AERB, within 5 days from the date of receipt of this order, who in turn should give a specific reply to the appellant, within the next 15 days. Further, the respondent should give a revised reply on point nos. 2, 3 and 7 of the RTI application to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Reply given on rest of the points is satisfactory.
7. The appellant is admonished and advised to exercise discretion and restraint in filing RTI applications.
Decision:
8. The respondent is directed to take action as per para 6 above.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar