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