Central Information Commission
Satyavir Singh Yadav vs Wildlife Institute Of India, Dehradun on 29 September, 2022
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/WLIOI/A/2022/124417
Satyavir Singh Yadav ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
WILDLIFE INSTITUTE OF INDIA
RTI CELL, POST BOX NO.18,
CHANDRABANI,
DEHRADUN -248001 UTTARAKHAND. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/09/2022
Date of Decision : 27/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :21/02/2022
CPIO replied on :09/03/2022
First appeal filed on :21/03/2022
First Appellate Authority order :18/04/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :18/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2022 seeking the following information:
1. "Reg revision of the existing Management Plan (2010-11 to 2021-22) of Okhla Bird Sanctuary, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P for the next period (2021-22 to 2030-31) 1 by the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun as per the earlier referenced request of the CWLW, UP:
(a) Duration with dates as per recent visit to Okhla Bird Sanctuary by the WII team in Feb, 2022 for samples collection/research/study/experiment for revision of the existing Management Plan for the next period of ten years (2021-22 to 2030-31)
(b) Name of the concerned department and HoD/Incharge Scientist of WII responsible for fresh samples collection/ research/study/experiment of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary-for revision of the Management Plan for the next period of ten years (2021-22 to 2030-31)
(c) Apx period to make the revise Management Plan of the sanctuary by WII for the next period of ten years (2021-22 to 2030-31). Photocopy of the MoU done between WII and CWLW, UP for revision of the Management Plan
(d) Total amount of fee/charges of WII to be paid by CWLW/Wildlife Dept, UP for revision of the Management Plan. Photocopy of the charges/fee of WII.
(e) Type of samples collection, research, study, experiment done in the sanctuary during recent short visit to the sanctuary by WII team in Feb, 2022.
(f) Scientific reasons for such a short period of recent field visit to the sanctuary by WIl team fur samples collection/research/study/experiment for revision of the existing Management Plan for next ten years while it was taken apx two years time for samples collection/research/ study/experiment for making the existing first Management Plan of the sanctuary (2010-11 to 2021-22)
(g) Whether WII team recorded the present overall degrading wildlife habitat status, flora & fauna specially birds, major threats (uncontrolled increasing cattle grazing, trespassers/free entry disturbing morning visitors, uncontrolled/unprotected western part of the sanctuary along Right Marginal Bund borders with Delhi, frequent fluctuation of water level up to dries up by U P irrigation Dept, open cremation/buries dead body on ground, open defecation, illegal activities, etc), objectionable/non-permitted series of new concrete base development/ construction structures (violating the Supreme Court Order 2010 Civil Writ Petition No.202/1925) for attraction of the entertainment tourists/visitors destroys/pollutes the environment/wildlife habitat (office room, meeting board room, sitting places, canteen room, tourist huts, night guard's stay room, entry ticket cum staff's stay rooms, gazebos, night street lights, toilets, big solar power panels, etc. along Left Afflux !fund degraded wildlife habitat for consideration as an important criteria for revise the Management Plan .
(h) Whether WII team recorded the instructions/suggestions for wildlife habitat and overall management of the sanctuary as per the existing Management Plan ignored by the sanctuary authority (conceals) for ref/ 'consider/compare for revise the Management Plan 2
(i) Whether WII team received copy and recorded the sanctuary's monthly monitoring biodiversity/habitat status reports (at least current years) submits monthly to Oto DFO, Gautam l3udh Nagar by engaged someone ecologist as per the Management Plant for management/control/protection of the sanctuary by the sanctuary authority (conceals) as an important criteria to gel last ten years recorded sanctuary's habitat/wildlife status to compare/consider for revise the Management Plan."
The CPIO furnished a para wise reply to the appellant on 09.03.2022 stating as follows:-
Para No. 1(a) to 1(i):- Till date no such task is assigned to Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Hence, no information is available.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2022. FAA's order dated 18.04.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
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 Ruchi Badola, FAA along with K. K. Srivastava, CPIO present through video-conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the Appellant vide written submission dated 22.09.2022 has sought exemption from participating in the hearing proceedings owing to his personal exigencies and he further contested that the reply provided by the CPIO was incorrect and misleading on the following arguments -
"xxxxxxxx
3. The CPIO, WII has concealed the desired objective information and provided incorrect information as quoted above while as per our observation (our birders regularly visiting the sanctuary) and recorded a scientific team from WII was stayed in the U.P Forest Rest House in Canal Colony Jamia Nagar, Delhi for about 10 days or so and openly done regular scientific field works including collection of water samples used the sanctuary power boat, recorded flora & fauna by walk & 3 used their vehicle in the sanctuary in the month of February, 2022. [Photograph of WII team collects water samples from the wetland by motor boat as evidence available but no option to attach more files or photographs through online submission] Further, already made and published hard copy of the revised or new Management Plan of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary which being followed by the Gautam Budh Nagar Forest Division for management of the sanctuary.
4. The Dept of Env, Forest & Climate Change (DoEFCC), Lucknow, Govt of Uttar Pradesh has been funded multi-crore rupees Grants-in-Aid (2018-19 to 2021-22) includes for Okhla Bird Sanctuary. References: sanctioned/released Rs.955 lakhs in (2018-19) vide MoEFCC letter F.No.8-18/2018 WL dated 11/3/2019; Rs.1080.4458 lakhs in (2020-21) vide MoEFCC letter F.No.13-24/2020 WL dated 10/9/2020 and more amounts in other financial years [No option to attach available more files, scanned copy of MoEFCC's grants sanction/released letters through online submission] for habitat development project of the sanctuary under CCS which has been misused & money laundering with submission of vague utilization certificates and currently serious complaints against misuse & money laundering of the MoEFCC grants to MoEFCC and DoEFCC remains pending for investigation and vigilance inquiry for needful action but remains silent and we will wait for legal action finally. WII being the research institution of the MoEFCC might be concealed the information and provided incorrect information not to disclose supporting the DoEFCC.
xxxxx....."
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 13.09.2022 and submitted that a factual response was already provided to the Appellant earlier and also upon receipt of hearing notice, a revised point wise reply was also furnished to the Appellant intimating him the factum of non-execution of such task of any Management Plan (2010-11 to 2021-22) of Okhla Bird Sanctuary, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P for the next period (2021-22 to 2030-31) as mentioned in the RTI Application. Upon Commission's instance, the CPIO facilitated a detailed discussion on the role and functioning of WII.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO earlier and now as the same was in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.4
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information furnished by the CPIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, no additional relief can be granted in the matter.5
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the attention of the CPIO is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add.
In view of the above said point, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of his written submission dated 13.09.2022 free of cost to the Appellant, if not provided to him at all, within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6