F. Nos. CIC/SM/A/2012/000835, 836, 837, 966, 1050, 1114, 1183, 1257, 1394, 1397, 1618, 1844, 1806 and CIC/SG/A/2012/001408. Case: D. Dhaya Devadas and Ors. Vs Anupam Nandi and Ors.. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | F. Nos. CIC/SM/A/2012/000835, 836, 837, 966, 1050, 1114, 1183, 1257, 1394, 1397, 1618, 1844, 1806 and CIC/SG/A/2012/001408 |
| Counsel | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(d) |
| Judges | Vijai Sharma, Chief Information Commissioner, M. Sridhar Acharyulu and Yashovardhan Azad, Information Commissioners |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(d) |
| Judgement Date | November 30, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: 1. These cases were heard on 13th August, 2014. 2. This order will dispose of 14 cases. These are 13 cases filed by Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas (12 cases against the Indian Bureau of Mines and the other case against the Department of Atomic Energy) and one case filed by Shri V. Sundaram against the Indian Bureau of Mines. 3. An important issue pertains to the disclosure of the mining plans submitted by various entities for grant of mining leases by the Government. This information is sought in public interest under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act). Therefore, it was decided to hear the matters in the light of the facts and circumstances of case No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000835 filed by Dr. Devadas. 4. The relevant brief facts of case No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000835 are that: "A. Dr. Devadas, by a request dated 10.12.2011, sought the following information under the Act from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), Chennai related to certain mining leases: (i) details of the lessee wise, lease wise scheme of mining submitted for approval with name of the Recognized Qualified Person (RQP), mining lease order No. and date, area, mineralogy, in situ and replenishable reserve, yearly mineable area and quantity shown in the draft scheme mines during the period from 01.01.2010 to till date; (ii) details of the lessee wise, mining wise and scheme of mining wise remarks/clarifications called for approval of scheme of mining from the Controller of Mines and the Chief Controller of Mines; and (iii) whether any heavy minerals are deposited away from the high Tide Line. (a) If yes, copies of the details/findings/reports/references available with Indian Bureau of Mines to substantiate the heavy minerals are deposited away from High Tide Line. (b) If No, (i) copies of the details/findings/reports/references on which the concerned official of Mines relied upon during the process of approving the mining plan covering the mining lease areas located away from High Tide Line by wind action with replenishable reserve; and (ii) copies of the details/finds/reports/references with which the concerned official of IBM relied upon during the process of approving a mining plan covering the mining lease area located away from high tide line without any replenishable reserve. B. In a reply dated 28.12.2011, the CPIO, IBM informed Dr. Devadas that the IBM was not maintaining record on mineralogy, in situ and replenishable reserves, yearly mineable area and quantity shown in the draft scheme of mining and approved scheme of mining. Regarding point A(i), copy of lessee-wise, lease-wise scheme of mining submitted for approval with name of RQP, village, area taken out from TMIS data base containing information after 2002 were provided to Dr. Devadas. Information prior to 2002 was maintained in a register of large size and it was not possible to xerox it. He was also informed that the register was available for physical verification and information. Regarding point A(ii), it was informed that the information was not available. Regarding point A(iii)(a), it was informed that there was no record in the matter. Regarding A(iii)(b), it was informed inter alia that the mining plan/SOM was processed based on field inspection/technical expertise of the inspecting officers. The details provided in the mining plan/SOM by the mine owners/RQP are checked and verified at the time of inspection of the mine along with reference from orders/circulars from Chief Controller of Mines Office, guidelines of mining plan/SOM. C. The appellant's first appeal dated 13.01.2012 was disposed of on 17.02.2012 by the Controller of Mines (SZ) and Appellate Authority and the reply by the CPIO was held as justified. D. In the present appeal dated 06.03.2012, the appellant has stated inter alia that the reply of the CPIO is not correct and that the requested information is available with the CPIO. The reasons given by the CPIO are... |
To continue reading
Request your trial