Central Information Commission
Rakesh Agrawal vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 5 November, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No : CIC/MOENF/A/2017/105210
In the matter of:
Rakesh Agrawal
...Appellant
Vs.
H C Chaudhary, IFS, Addl. Principal Chief Conservator
Of Forests, (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife
Warden: Meghalaya Sylvan House,
Lower Lachumiere, Shillong - 793001.
&
Scientist D/CPIO, M/o Environment, Forest & Climate
Change, (IA Division), Indira Paryavaran
Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi - 110003
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 13.10.2016
CPIO reply : Not on record
First Appeal : 07.12.2016
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 16.01.2017
Date of hearing : 24.07.2018, 11.10.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 13.10.2016 sought information on five points as under;
1. Number of NOC given for construction of commercial and residential buildings. Name of the applicant, place and year.
2. Whether permission was required from M.D.D.A.
3. Other related information.
1The CPIO's reply or the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 16.01.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Sandeep Sharma,
Assistant Inspector General along with
Dr. Bhawna Singh,
Scientist D cum CPIO
M/o Environment Forest and Climate Change
During the hearing, the appellant submitted that he had not received any reply till date.
The respondent CPIO handed over a written synopsis of the case and submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 24.01.2018. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that transfer of the said RTI application was delayed for which a show cause notice is issued to Shri F.C. Chaudhary, Director, the then CPIO and Dr Vinod Kumar, the then CPIO.
In view of the above, a Show Cause notice is issued to the then CPIOs, Shri F.C. Chaudhary, Director and Dr Vinod Kumar, Scientist, the then CPIO, M/o Environment Forest and Climate Change u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
Why the required reply to the RTI application dated 13.10.2016 was not provided to the appellant in all these years and why transfer of the same to the concerned CPIO was delayed.2
The explanation(s) to the above stated Show Cause notice is/are to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO/PIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent CPIO should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the sought for information on point nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the above stated RTI application is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The sought for information on point nos. 1 and 5 is disclosable but the reply is not proper for which a warning is issued to Dr. Bhawna Singh, Scientist D cum CPIO.
The respondent CPIO, Dr. Bhawna Singh, Scientist D is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should have been provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said application.
The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against him by the Commission.
The present respondent CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this warning to the then CPIO and a copy of the service of the above said warning be submitted to the Commission within 10 days of the receipt of the order.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the present respondent CPIO, Dr. Bhawna Singh, Scientist D is directed to provide revised point wise reply as discussed during the hearing complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, 3 correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 21 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above show cause/direction/warning, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 11.10.2018
Respondent : Present, Dr Vinod Kumar Singh
Scientist "D"
H.C Chaudhary
Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Dr. J D Marcus Knight, Scientist C
Sh. H C Chaudhary, IFS, Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests submitted that in the said RTI application dated 13.10.2016, the appellant had sought information relating to the NoC given for construction of commercial and resident building in Mussorrie. Some of the information sought in the said application might be available in some of the files pertaining to Policy and Legal matters related to Forest Conservation dealt by him till 30.08.2016.
The MoEFCC, Gol vide office order F.No. 65011/06/2014-P-II dated 30.08.2016 withdrew with immediate effect the order entrusting the Charge of policy and Legal matters related to Forest Conservation to him. A copy of MoEFCC, Gol's said office orders dated 30.08.2016 along with the related office Orders F.No. -65011/06/2014-PO-II dated 30.08.2016 and F.No.-
65011/06/2014-PO-II dated 16.08.2016 were enclosed.
As per the said Office Order, with effect from 30.08.2016, he was dealing with all matters relating the Green India Mission (GIM) and the Desertification.
4None of the files available in the Directorate of GOIM and Desertification Cell contained any of the information sought by the said RTI applicant.
Consequent to the re-allocation of works to him w.e.f 30.08.2016, he also ceased to remain a Central Public Information officer (CPIO) as duties of CPIO in the said Directorate of GIM and Desertification Cell were assigned to officers in the rank of Under Secretary to the Government of India.
Keeping in view the above, the said RTI application dated 13.10.2016 filed much after the afore-mentioned re-allocation of work to him should not have been addressed or transferred to him. He also did not remember that the said application was physically received by him either directly from the applicant or through any other CPIO.
Dr. Bhawna Singh (present CPIO) submitted that in the present case, CIC vide order dated 24.07.2018 directed her to (i) serve copy of the order to then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission (ii) provide revised point wise reply on point no. 1 and 5 of the RTI and (iii) send report containing the copy of the revised reply and date of dispatch to the commission. The order was complied with vide letter dated 21.08.2018.
Explanation from Sh. Vinod Kumar Singh, Scientist D/CPIO-
He submitted that, as per the details available, the RTI request No. MOENF/R/2016/01345 dated 24.10.2016 was forwarded to the then Scientist D/CPIO Shri Aditya Narayan Singh, looking after the IA (Infra-2 Sector) and the then CPIO Shri H.C. Choudhary looking after Forest Conservation Division.
He also submitted that, the First appeal request No. MOENF/A/2016/00122 dated 19.12.2016 received by the then First Appellate Authority Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Joint Secretary. First Appeal was disposed of by First Appellate Authority on 15.02.2017 with the remark "dispose of the above mentioned RTI Appeals within 07 days time on receipt of this direction with intimation to the undersigned". The copy of Action History of RTI First Appeal No. MOENF/A/2016/00122 dated 19.12.2016 was enclosed.
5He submitted that, he was transferred to the IA Division vide office order No. A-22011/01/2016-P.I dated 10.02.2017 and assigned the work related to Infra-2 Sector vide office order dated 16.02.2017. Copy of the office order dated 16.02.2017 was enclosed.
5. He submitted that, the RTI request No. MOENF/R/2016/01345 was forwarded to Dr. Bhawna Singh, Scientist D/CPIO presently looking after IA (Infra-2 sector) as per work order on 20.01.2018. The reasons for inadvertent delay in transferring the said RTI request are as follows:
(i) When he was transferred to the IA (Infra-2 Sector), there was large pendency of the proposals relating to the grant of environmental clearances in Infra-2 Sector, out of which most of the proposals were recommended by the EZC but could not be processed due to manpower shortage. That time only he was deputed for the entire work of Infra-2 sector. The work includes appraisal of proposals, acceptance, agenda preparation and organisation of EAC meetings, preparation of minutes and processing of files. In additions, constitution of SEIAA/SEAC of different States/UTs, integration of Environmental Conditions in Building Bye-laws, Court cases, VIP references, complaints, RTI applications, Parliament Question, Public Grievances are also processed as per routine or priority basis on a case by case approach. Dr. Bhawna Singh, Scientist 'D' had joined the Infra-2 sector w.e.f. 16th October, 2018, thereafter work of Infra-2 sector had been distributed between these two scientists.
(ii) During the last one year (August, 2017-July, 2018), the Infra-2 sector had conducted 12 meetings of EAC and considered 506 proposals out of which 241 environmental/environmental & CRZ clearances, 102 ToRs and 43 Amendments/Extension of validity had been recommended and issued.
(iii) Besides the above, he was also involved in processing and issuance of notification regarding re-constitution of State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)/State Environment Appraisal Committee (SEAC) for the 6 states of Goa, Gujarat, Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur and Punjab.
(iv) In addition to it, he was also involved in processing and issuance of around 40 Terms of References for violation sector projects relating to building and construction projects.
6. He submitted that, the delay in the transfer of the said RTI request did happen inadvertently due to reasons mentioned above and as the leader of the concerned unit he was deeply regretted. Sincere efforts had been undertaken to streamline the process and avoid such delays in future.
7. He submitted that, during 16th February 2017-16th to August, 2018, the he has disposed of around 225 RTI application as per the provisions contained in the RTI Act, 2005. At present, no RTI application (more than 30 days) is pending with him.
8. He undertakes to ensure that in future, reply to an RTI request shall be provided/transferred to the other concerned Public Authority/concerned CPIO within the prescribed time frame as per the provisions contained in the RTI Act 2005.
Decision:
Based on the above explanation, it was noted by the Commission that the delay occurred on the part of the then Scientist D/CPIO Shri Aditya Narayan Singh and Sh. Vinod Kumar Singh, Scientist D/CPIO.
It was also noted by the Commission that delayed transfer of RTI application for which information was provided late to the appellant is deplorable for which the then CPIOs needs to be issued a warning.
The then respondent CPIO, is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should have been provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said application.7
The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against him by the Commission.
With the above warning, the showcause proceeding is treated as closed. Copies of the order be sent to all the concerned parties free of cost.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय) Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ टाचाय Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु! ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ"मा#णत स%या&पत "ित) Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप ) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date 8