Central Information Commission
Shri D. Suvarna Raju vs Department Of Atomic Energy (Dae) on 16 January, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00832-SM dated 29.04.2008
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 16.01.2009
Appellant: Shri D. Suvarna Raju
Respondents: Department of Atomic Energy (DAE)
This case was heard through video conferencing on 16.01.2009.
The Appellant was present in person, along with his representative Shri V. Narayanana in the NIC studio at Hyderabad.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in the same studio:
(i) Sh. R. N. Jayran, FAA
(ii) Sh. Nagender, PIO
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO in his letter dated 13.10.2007 seeking information in respect of copies of the Uranium Exhaustive Plant, work Distribution cum Absentee Statement General Shift and Round-the-Clock Shifts Log-book for two specific dates. The CPIO, in his reply of 17.11.2007, informed him that in view of the critical and sensitive machinery deployed in the Nuclear Fuel Complex in which strategic materials were processed, the information sought could not be disclosed as it might affect the security of the State and, thus, exempt under Section 8(1) (a) of the Right to Information Act. It is also noted that he had, rather unnecessarily, also asked the Appellant to indicate the purpose for which the information was being sought, though under the RTI Act the Applicant is not required to state any particular reason or purpose. The Appellant had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 05.01.2008. The Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the PIO and directed the Appellant to approach the Grievance Redressel Committee in the organisation. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant has now approached this Commission in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, submissions of both the sides were heard. In regard to the denial of information in respect of the copy of the work distribution and log- book maintained by the shift incharge or by the operators in the Plants we agree with the contention of the Respondent that this information, if disclosed, would place in the public domain confidential and critical details about the machinery and the manufacturing process which could endanger the security of the country. Such information cannot obviously be disclosed. However, the Respondents themselves agree that copies of the absentee statement for both the said dates could be given and though they had given a copy of that in the past, they once again gave copies of the absentee statement for both the dates to the Appellant during the hearing itself. Thus, there is nothing more to be decided in this case and, hence, the appeal is disposed off.
4. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar