Central Information Commission
Atulkumar G Shah vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 30 September, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/130391
CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/130390
CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/134332
Shri Atulkumar G Shah ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
Date of Hearing : 29.09.2022
Date of Decision : 30.09.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
130391 28.10.2019 07.02.2020 21.02.2020 02.03.2020 29.07.2021
130390 14.03.2021 16.04.2021 16.04.2021 27.05.2021 29.07.2021
134332 26.09.2019 28.10.2019 16.12.2019 - 25.08.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/130391 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2019 seeking information on the following points:-Page 1 of 7
The CPIO/Addl. Chief Engineer, NPCIL, vide letter dated 07.02.2020 replied as under:-Page 2 of 7
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.02.2021. The FAA/AD (CP&C), NPCIL, vide order dated
02.03.2020informed that appeal is still under process.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 20.09.2022 which has been taken on record.
Another written submission has been received from the CPIO, NPCIL vide letter dated 26.09.2022 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that complete point wise information was not provided to him till date. In this context, he specifically referred to point 13 of the application. He also prayed for allowing him an opportunity to inspect the documents on a mutually convenient date and time.
Page 3 of 7The Respondent represented by Shri S.K. Srivastava, CPIO and AGM (HR); Shri Ajay Prakash, Sr Managaer, Sitapur; Smt Shraddha Gupta, APIO and Sr Manager and Smt Nitya Sunder, Sr Manager (HR) participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Srivastava stated that comprehensive point wise information has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 07.02.2020.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that points 13 to 18 are not addressed in the reply dated 07.02.2020. The Commission thus directs Shri S.K. Srivastava, CPIO and AGM (HR) to provide a revised response on the aforementioned points in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant by 31.10.2022 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(2) CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/130390 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO/Addl. Chief Engineer, NPCIL, vide letter dated 16.04.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.04.2021. The FAA/AD (CP&C), NPCIL, vide order dated 27.05.2021 stated as under:-Page 4 of 7
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, NPCIL vide letter dated 26.09.2022 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that although point 2 has been answered satisfactorily, documents pertaining to closing his grievance petition dated 21.01.2021 as sought in point 1 of the RTI application was not provided. Thus, he wanted to avail an opportunity to inspect the documents.
The Respondent represented by Shri S.K. Srivastava, CPIO and AGM (HR); Shri Ajay Prakash, Sr Managaer, Sitapur; Smt Shraddha Gupta, APIO and Sr Manager and Smt Nitya Sunder, Sr Manager (HR) participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Srivastava stated that as per the inputs received from the custodian of information i.e., Disciplinary Cell (DC) no such information as sought in point 1 is available on record.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(3) CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/134332 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2019 seeking information on the following points:-
Page 5 of 7The CPIO/Addl. Chief Engineer, NPCIL, vide letter dated 28.10.2019 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2021 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 6 of 7
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, NPCIL vide letter dated 26.09.2022 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that although information pertaining to Narora Power Station was provided, information pertaining to other power stations such as Kakrapar, Kaiga, etc was not disclosed.
The Respondent represented by Shri S.K. Srivastava, CPIO and AGM (HR); Shri Ajay Prakash, Sr Managaer, Sitapur; Smt Shraddha Gupta, APIO and Sr Manager and Smt Nitya Sunder, Sr Manager (HR) participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Srivastava stated that point wise information has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 28.10.2019. On being queried by the Commission regarding the applicability of Section 8 (1) (h) at present, Shri Srivastava stated that the proceedings are now completed hence a revised reply can be provided, if so directed by the Commission.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs Shri S.K. Srivastava, CPIO and AGM (HR) to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised response as per the updated factual position in the matter to the Appellant by 31.10.2022 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 7 of 7