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/2011/000142issue 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.