Central Information Commission
Sagar vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 27 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOENF/A/2022/650665
SAGAR ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, RTI Cell, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi-110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26/06/2023
Date of Decision : 26/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 01/08/2022
First appeal filed on : 01/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 12/08/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"Recently single use plastic has been banned by the Indian government. Give the following information regarding its execution 1
1.What are the rules of restrictions on pre-made foods and milk, curd, buttermilk, etc., which are packed in plastic wrappers
2. After the implementation of the order, how many single use plastic manufacturing factories have been closed."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 01.08.2022 stating as under:
"The item of RTI application is not covered under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.08.2022. FAA's order, dated 12.08.2022, held as under:
"Based on the appeal submitted by the appellant and submission made by the CPIO, it is observed that information requisite is not covered under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. However, CPIO is directed to provide the link of the rules pertaining to plastic waste management to the appellant. Also, CPIO is directed to forward the RTI application to the CPIO of the concerned ministry. The appeal is accordingly disposed of."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Dr Amit Love, Scientist E & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the Appellant vide written submission dated 16.06.2023 stated that response furnished by the CPIO was incomplete and unsatisfactory.
In response to aforesaid, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 23.06.2023 (copy marked to the Appellant) wherein he inter alia explained as under -2
"I. This relates to RTI application filed by Shri Sagar on 291h July 2022 (MoEFNF/R/E/22/00800). It is submitted that on perusal of the RTI application the same was rejected as the information sought was not covered under section 2(t) of RTI, Act. 2005. It is submitted that item (I) of the RTI application is in the nature of a query. The same is quoted for reference: "What are the rules of restrictions on pre-made foods and milk, cure, buttermilk, etc.. which are packed in plastic wrappers". The second question being considered as consequential one emerging out of a first query. The same is quoted for reference: "After the implementation of the order, how many' single use plastic use plastic manufacturing factories have been closed".
2. It is humbly submitted that queries / clarifications / reasons have not being held as admissible within the confines of Section 2 (f) of RTI Act. 2005. It is under this understanding that the undersigned in his capacity as CPIO rejected the RTI application. It is also submitted that the undersigned was prompt in response and did not intentionally delay the process for provision of information to the WTI Applicant. It is submitted that the date of RTI was 29th July 2022 and the date of undersigned taking action under RTI Act is IM August 2022.
3. It is submitted that The RTI applicant made a first appeal to first appellant authority on 5th August 2022. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the matter on I2 August 2022 with the direction of the quoted below: "Based on the appeal submitted by the appellant and submission made by the CP10. it is observed that information requisite is not covered under section 2(I) of RTI Act, 2005. However. CPI0 is directed to provide the link of the rules pertaining to plastic waste management to the appellant. Also. CP10 is directed to forward the RTI application to the CP10 of the concerned ministry. The appeal is accordingly disposed of " It may be seen that the FAA has directed that the link for the rules pertaining to plastic waste management be provided to the appellant and the RTI application is forwarded to the concerned Ministry'.
4. In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the order of First Appellate Authority could not be implemented due to inadvertent lack of communication. Otherwise. the undersigned in his capacity as CP10 would have complied with the direction of the FAA.
5. It is humbly submitted that it was not the intention of the CPIO to deny any intimation to the RTI applicant as all information has already been available in public domain and not specifically held by the undersigned.
36. It is also submitted that the R T I applicant has sought the following information:
xxx
7. It submitted the notification prohibiting identified single use plastic ban (Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules 2021 was notified as 12th August 2021 in the Gazette of India. the notification is already available and accessible on the website of MoEF&CC and CPCB. The same is also freely available on different the interact websites. As such, it is not strictly held by the CPIO and the same is in public domain. the principal Plastic Waste Management Rules. 2016. which lays down the prescribed authorities for enforcement of rules are also available in public domain since notification.
8. Further, between the time of notification of ban on identified single use plastic items on 12th August 2021 and the ban coming into effect on 1st July 2022. the Central Pollution Control Board. brought out public notices in print media on the items being prohibited under the single use plastic ban. Separately, Pan India awareness campaign was carried out by State Government SPCB's/PCCs and local authorities regarding the single use plastic items which were being banned from I"
July 2022. It may also be highlighted that the Plastic Waste Management (Amendment). Rules 2021 clearly lists out the items being prohibited. I he Go me notification is in both English and [find' and is available in public domain. As such the genuine information requirement is fulfilled as regards the banned items.
9. It is important to highlight here that the amendments of Plastic Waste Management Rules arc already in the public domain since their notification in the Gazette of India and arc available and accessible on the website of Ministry. CPCII. as also in 1:-Gazette website. Further, as regards the query of R II applicant it is submitted that the regulations with respective to premade foods and milk, curd, buttermilk etc., which are packed in plastic wrappers are issued by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India and are also available in public domain and available and accessible on the website of FSSAI These regulations are also available in the public domain.
10. The amendments of the Plastic Waste Management Rules including the amendment related to imposition of ban on identified single use plastic ban is attached 194 pages). I he Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) Regulations. 2018. notified by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (14 pages). In cast required by the RTI applicant as per available information collated from State 4 Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees 267 units which were earlier manufacturing banned single use plastics items have closed.
I1I. It is submitted that that there was no intention to withhold any information from the applicant. Further, the information is already available in public domain much before the date of application of the RTI applicant. The delay in responding to the direction given by FAA to provide link of the Plastic Waste Management Rules and to forward the RT1 application to the concerned Ministry could not be implemented due to inadvertent lack of communication. Otherwise. the undersigned in his capacity as CPIO would have complied with the direction of the FAA. The delay in response is advertent and deeply regretted by the CP10. The CP10 undertakes that the due care would be taken to ensure that no delay occurs because of inadvertent lack of communication. The CPIO requests that the delay in providing response is condoned."
Decision:
The Commission upon scrutinizing the contents of RTI Applications and after considering the submissions of CPIO finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to information sought by the Appellant as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon earlier and now; as the queries raised by the Appellant concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The contents of the RTI Application, First/ Second Appeal, none of it concern the mandate of the RTI Act or the jurisdiction of the CPIO or that of the FAA or the Commission under the RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."5
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, 6 logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied The Appellant is therefore, advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in future as also to pursue his grievance through proper administrative channel.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7