Central Information Commission
Dharmesh Shah vs Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi on 24 June, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सचु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/CPCBD/A/2019/652744
In the matter of:
Dharmesh Shah
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Central Pollution Control Board,
Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar,
New Delhi - 110032
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 29/06/2019 CPIO replied on : 30/07/2019 First appeal filed on : 02/08/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 30/08/2019 Second Appeal dated : 02/10/2019 Date of Hearing : 23/06/2021 Date of Decision : 23/06/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Sh. Divya Sinha, AD & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he has not received satisfactory information on point 6 of his RTI application, which is stated below:
6. Provide copies of Form -1 as submitted by the brand owners/producers in compliance with Rule 9(1&2) and 13(2) of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (as amended up to 2018).1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information on point No. 6 while claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case, however, in his second appeal memo he had stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO or the FAA's order as on point no. 6, the information was incorrectly denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the information sought on this is in larger public interest as the companies/parties in question have failed to follow the law and their failure to contain the plastic waste continues to cause irreparable damage to the environment. The CPCB as a public authority is obliged to share any such information that is in their possession with the citizens.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 03.05.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO on point no. 6 of the RTI application where he had sought the copies of Form 1 as submitted by the Brand Owners/Producers that are in compliance with the rule 9(1&2) and 13(2) of Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 as amended 2018. Initially the CPIO in his reply had failed to refer to any specific exemption clause enumerated u/s 8(1) of the RTI Act and had merely stated that the information sought cannot be provided under the provisions of the RTI Act. Thereafter, the FAA in his order had claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Both of these replies are incomplete as no justification was given as to how Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is applicable. Under the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO. The CPIO in his reply had clearly failed to justify his position as to how the disclosure of information would be in contravention of any of the provisions enshrined under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 and what matter is classified. In this context, the Commission refers to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, wherein it was held as under:
"6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific 2 clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden.
During the hearing, the CPIO explained that the information sought by the appellant on point no. 6 i.e. a copy of the Form -1 includes financial details, product specifications, raw material details and other industry specific information related to production which is highly confidential information and therefore the same was not disclosed to the appellant. The Commission notes that since no such information was given to the appellant and while considering this alongwith the fact that the initial reply and the order of the FAA both are incomplete, the Commission deems it appropriate to direct the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the appellant on point no. 6.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant on point no. 6 of the RTI application (by providing a blank copy of form 1) as per the provisions of the RTI Act within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The CPIO should note that in case he is unable to justify the exemption claimed by him, the sought for information should be provided to the appellant free of cost.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3