Central Information Commission
Devendra Phanikar Osuri vs Department Of Animal Husbandry, ... on 23 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOAHD/A/2022/153927
Devendra Phanikar Osuri ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Director(Tech.), Coastal Aquaculture
Authority, RTI Cell, 5th Floor,
Integrated Office Complex For
Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department,
Veterinary Hospital Road,
Fanepet, Nandanam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu-600035. .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/05/2023
Date of Decision : 18/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 19/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 13/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 14/07/2022
Second Appeal dated : 14/11/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"BACKGROUND:
I complained for illegal existence of prawn tanks in Peechupalem and Laxmaneswaram areas of West Godavari Andhra Pradesh to The Secretary, Coastal Aquaculture Authority Government of India, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Government of India.
To which I received a response from The Director (Technical (Coastal Aquaculture Authority Government of India Vide Letter of No F. No. 70- 3/2020 Tech. (mis) dated 11-4-2022 COASTAL AQUACULTURE AUTHORITY Department of Fisheries. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry Govt of India a copy of which was enclose herewith along my email complaints to E- mail of CAA vide [email protected] on 12-4-2022,13-04-2022. 18- 04-2022 and 19-04-2022 requesting them to act -Accordingly, a team constituted by Coastal Aqua Culture Authority inspected the illegally constructed prawn tanks on 20-04-2022 as per the notice issued by them which was enclosed here with.
In the light of the above-mentioned background, please provide the following information under section 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI act:
1) Certified copy of the further actions taken by the Coastal Aqua Culture Authority for the complaint filed by me for illegal existence of prawn tanks in Peechupalem and Laxmaneswaram areas of West Godavari Andhra Pradesh.
2) A certified copy of report of inquiry of inspection done on 20-04-2022 by the Coastal Aqua Culture Authority."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.05.2022 stating as under:
"The enquiry Is under progress and hence the information sought cannot be provided as provided under section 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:-2
"Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution of offenders".
RTI Act cannot be used for Grievance redressal as defined under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005.
Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 200S defines information as follows:
Information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advises, 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."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 14.07.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: G. Priya, Asst. Director(T) & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant vide written submission dated Nil has sought exemption from participation in the hearing owing to old age/health issues and further raised his arguments on the following lines -
"...-I have been fighting against illegal pawn tanks in AP existing due to inaction by the concerned-I represented to CVC on the directions of CVC ,the CM official conducted an inquiry on 20-04-2022 As I was out of station ,I sent sent several representations by emails to which I attached several documents to prove illegal prawn culture which is damaging the environment and contamination the fresh water as aqua farmers are bailing out salt water in to fresh water
-I requested the PIO concemed to furnish me the details of inquiry report on CVC orders since it was my complaints -Dissatisfied with the response ,I filed the appeal in which the Appellate Authority the Member Secretary instead of confining her self to the subject matter of the Appeal 3 for information ,attacked my charterer which is against the code of conduct -As per the rules of RTI act ,PlOs should not ask for reasons or details about the Applicants .They shall confine to the fact that as to whether they can provide information sought under RTI Act .They should not mention about the applicant - The information is more important the applicant -They can reject providing information by citing reasons They shall not mention about the Appellant /Applicant. In this case ,the Appellate Authority outrightly used derogatory language against me She went further to complain against me for seeking information regarding update PG my complaint mentioned supra I therefore pray that necessary action may be taken against the Appellant Authority /Member Secretary for making personal comments against me which is overriding the the information sought as it will become a precedent and restrain RTI activists from freely applying for the information against corruption in public interests"
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards her written submission dated 15.05.2023 (copy marked to the Appellant), relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
"...The gist of the events in respect of RTI are as follows:4 5
It is submitted that Shri Devendra Phanikar Osuri, West Godavad District is a habitual petitioner sending petitions to various Authorities in the Government since the year 2018. He is claiming that illegal shrimp aquaculture is being carried out in Sy. No. 73-105 in the areas of Peechupalem and Laxmaneswaram of Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavan District without obtaining permission from Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA). In contrary, he also levels allegations of corruption against the officials of CAA and State Fisheries Department in granting permission for prawn ponds in the villages of Narsapur Mandal without observing provisions of the CAA Act and Rules 2005 (Annexure I).
In this regard, CAA had constituted a Committee vide its order dated 06.04.2022 headed by Director (Technical), CM to verify the complaint filed by Shri. Gevendra Phanikar Osuri (Annexure-II).Shii Devendra Phanikar Osuri was requested to appear in person before the Committee constituted by CAA on 20thApril, 2022 and put forth his explanation/contentions along with evidences, if any, In support of his allegations levelled regarding illegal construction of shrimp farm(Annexure-III). However, he abstained from appearing before the Committee on 20thApril, 2022. The Committee conducted an inspection, enquiry and obtained deposition from the available farmers at the field (Annexure- IV). It was concluded that the areas of Peechupalem and Laxmaneswaram of Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District are not covered under CAA Act and hence, does not come under the purview of CAA.
Coastal aquaculture is defined as the following under Subsection 1 (C) of Section 2 of CAA Act, 2005, (Annexure- V).
"coastal aquaculture" means culturing, under controlled conditions In ponds, pens, enclosures or otherwise, In coastal areas, of shrimp, prawn, fish or any other aquatic life in saline or brackish water; but does not Inducts fresh water aquaculture;
The area Narasapuram is in Godavari River delta area provided with network of fresh water canals (tall end of Godavari fresh water canal system) as well as located adjacent to the part of River Godavari which confluence in Bay of Bengal at a distance of 151(ms. As a result, both fresh water and brackish water are available to the aqua farms in this area. However, Farmers adopt freshwater aqua culture in most cases. Hence, they do not come under the purview of CAA. There was no evidence of corruption as alleged as there was no registration 6 granted since 2011 in the areas of Peechupalem and Laxmaneswaram of Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.
Further, it is also submitted that CM requested the Commissioner of Fisheries, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh to Initiate appropriate action on the unregistered Coastal Aquaculture farms operating with saline or brackishwater having salinity of S PPT and above as per the delegation granted vide order No.75- 1/ 2019-Tech dated 27.01.2022 to Member Convener, District Level Committee (DLC), CAA(Annexure-VI). In this regard, the Commissioner of Fisheries, Andhra Pradesh informed that directions have been given to the District Fisheries Officer, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh for taking necessary action (Annexure-VII). The action taken report in this regard is still awaited. In this mean time, the petitioner has lodged the same complaint to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) dated 04.02.2022 which was forwarded to Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India for redressal.
Further, the appellant made his 'Ira appeal before the appellate authority on 17.06.2022 claiming that Central Public Information Officer has not denied information and unsatisfactory reply sought by the appellant. The appeal was disposed by the appellate authority on this grounds that the CPIO rightly denied the information as the information sought in the application is exempted under section 8(h) of RTI Ad, 2005. RTI Act cannot be used for Grievance redressal as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 Further, the information sought by him does not seem to have any larger public interest. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed by the appellate authority on 14.07.2022 (Annexure-IX).
He is sending RTI petitions to various relevant and irrelevant authorities including authorities in Pondicherry, UT for matters connected with State of Andhra Pradesh wasting the precious time of the Govt. machinery (Annexure -X). Moreover, he is continuously sending petitions through public grievances portal of the office of the Montle Prime Minister, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (Department of Fisheries), Govt. of India. This is causing enormous wastage of precious time and energy of the officials from various institutions of State and Central Government. He is also causing tremendous mental agony and torture to the officials of CAA as well as to the State Government through his baseless allegations.
7In the light of the above background, the following are submitted for the kind perusal and consideration.
1.The appellant was requested by the Director (Technical), CAA to appear in person for enquiry on the appellant's PMO grievances/ CVC petition on 20.04.2022. However, the petitioner did not present himself before the committee but made RTI applications and PMO grievances to know the action taken on his petitions.
2. The appellant petitions have been redressed by both CAA and Department of Fisheries, State of Andhra Pradesh and disposed of, as there is no evidence of such allegations levelled by the individual since no such registration or permission has been granted by CAA from the year 2011.
3. Since the farms located In Peechupalem and Lakshmaneswaram areas of Narasapur Mandel, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh generally operating with freshwater, they do not fall under the purview of CAA and hence they shall be considered for registration under the relevant statutes of the State Government.
4. The appellant is submitting complaints against the officials of CAA and the State Department of Fisheries with various authorities also under RTI Act, In several districts of Andhra Pradesh and even in Puducherry, UT. Moreover, he is continuously sending petitions through public grievances portal of the office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (Department of Fisheries), Govt. of India.
5 It Is submitted that the individual is a habitual petition monger who Is sending petitions after petitions both under RTI and grievance redressal with no material and substance to authorities relevant and irrelevant to the subject matter. He refuses to appear for the field enquiry on his petition but demands for the action taken on his petitions..."
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it detailed submissions tendered by the CPIO vide written submissions dated 15.05.2023 as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. Further , as explained and concluded by the areas of 8 Peechupalem and Laxmaneswaram of Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District are not covered under CAA Act and hence, does not come under their purview . However, the CPIO had also mentioned that the enquiry is under way with the Commissioner Fisheries of Andhra Pradesh Government.
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding illegal existence of prawn tanks in Peechupalem and Laxmaneswaram areas of West Godavari Andhra Pradesh is a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
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 has held as under:
"6. ....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) 9 Having observed as above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पन
ु हा न)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
10