Nitin Singhvi vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 25 July, 2023

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nitin Singhvi vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 25 July, 2023

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                                  के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                               बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

                               ADJUNCT DECISION

File No : CIC/MOENF/A/2022/136574

Nitin Singhvi                                               ......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 Interim Decision           :   26/06/2023

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :             Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on           :   30/03/2022
CPIO replied on                    :   26/04/2022
First appeal filed on              :   05/05/2022
First Appellate Authority order    :   19/05/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated         :   29/07/2022

Information sought

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.03.2022 seeking the following information:

"The applicant sent a letter dtd 26.02.2022 vide letter No. LTG 28/202Z jointly addressed to The Secretary MoEF&CC, Director General Wildlife and S.S., Add DG Wildlife and DG of Forest MoEF&CC on the subject reading as:

Sub: Request to phase out diesel and petrol vehicles being used in National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Tiger Reserves and start using Electrical Vehicles: this will avoid noise, air pollution and emission of CO2 in the forests will not disturb the peace to the Wildlife.

Copy of above said letter sent through e mail on 26.02.2022 is attached with email proof.

Please provide me the copy(ies) of the letter(s) written on the subject after receipt of the above letter AND the note sheet made after receipt of the above said letter."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 26.04.2022 stating as under:

"The information sought is not available with the CPIO."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.05.2022. FAA's order, dated 19.05.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of desired information from the CPIO. He further prayed the Commission to penalize the CPIO as per RTI Act.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Sunil Sharma, J.D. (Wildlife) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.

The Commission remarked at the outset that the Appellant before the commencement of hearing , sought adjournment in the matter to study the facts of the case in the absence of any response from the CPIO/ FAA to his second appeal . He further prayed the Commission that CPIO/FAA may be directed to provide point wise reply so as to enable him to argue his case before the Bench 2 after seeking legal advice. However, since the CPIO was present in the hearing, the Bench decided to hear the CPIO before taking any final call .

The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 26.06.2023 wherein he inter alia stated as under -

"1. Shri Nitin Singhvi has requested for information on 30.03.2022 (Annexure-I).

2. The CPIO has responded on 26.04.2022 and mentioned that 'information sought is not available with this CPIO' (Annexure-I).

3. It may also be stated that the Shri Nitin Singhvi had made an appeal to the First Appellate Authority and DIG (WL) on 20.11.2021 (Annexure-II).

4. The Appellate Authority has responded that 'reply given by the CPIO is correct' (Annexure III).

In this context, it is mentioned that Shri Nitin Singhvi has sought information for action taken report on his representation No. LTG/28/2022 dated 26.02.2022 submitted through email regarding the use of electric vehicles in National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Tiger Reserves.

However, no such representation was received in Wildlife Division of the Ministry."

Interim Decision:

The Commission upon a perusal of records although finds no infirmity in the factual response of the CPIO intimating the factum of non-receipt of Appellant's subject representation, as it was found to be as per the provisions of RTI Act.

However, considering the prayer of the Appellant, the CPIO is directed to file an affidavit with the Commission with a copy of it duly marked to the Appellant (free of cost) deposing categorically that representation No. LTG/28/2022 dated 26.02.2022 was never received in their office. The said affidavit should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Further, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his written submission dated 26.06.2023 free of cost with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

Also , considering the prayer of the Appellant, he is advised to send a copy of his representation No. LTG/28/2022 dated 26.02.2022 to the CPIO and the latter on receipt of this representation to provide a categorical reply intimating the action 3 taken report on it, free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of subject matter representation from the Appellant and a compliance report to this effect shall be filed by the CPIO with the Commission thereafter. Lastly, upon insistence of the Appellant, the Commission is of the considered opinion that for effective dispensation of justice in the matter, it is imperative to hear the arguments of the Appellant. Accordingly, the case is adjourned as per the request of the Appellant.

Now, therefore the Appellant and the CPIO are directed to appear before the bench in person via video conferencing mode on 19.07.2023 at 11.00 am for hearing.

The Appeal is reserved for final order.

ADJUNCT DECISION PROCEEDINGS The CPIO placed reliance on his written submission dated 18.07.2023 wherein he mentioned that in compliance with above mentioned directions , a point wise reply along with a copy of an affidavit as also the action taken report on Appellant's representation has already been furnished to him. Although, the original representation dated 26.02.2022 was never received in their office; however, upon receipt of its copy after the averred proceedings, the suggestions quoted in the said representation as regards to Usage of EVs in National Parks Sanctuaries and Tiger Reserves have been forwarded to the Chief Wildlife Warden of All States/UTs for further action. Thus, no further information is left at their end.

To a query from the Commission, the Appellant affirmed the receipt of information/ response. However, he vehemently expressed his dissatisfaction with the factum of delay caused by the CPIO in taking necessary action which has now been taken after expiry of more than one year which ought to have been initiated at the first instance itself. He further contested the inaction of CPIO as also of the FAA in not facilitating the desired information to him by invoking Sections 5(4) & 5(5) of RTI Act, by taking assistance of other wings. In this regard, the Appellant urged the bench to penalize the CPIO under Section 20 of RTI Act. Adjunct Decision:

The Commission observes from a perusal of records that it is an admitted fact by the Appellant himself that he is in receipt of information now. However, during hearing, he harped on the issue of delay caused by the CPIO in giving complete desired information at this stage. In this regard, the CPIO explained in a 4 categorical manner that original averred representation was not received by him earlier; however after getting a copy of the representation no. 28/2022 dated 26.02.2022, it has since been forwarded to the Chief Wildlife Warden of All States/UTs for further action on 14.07.2023.

Having observed as above, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the Appellant to initiate any penal action against the CPIO in the absence of any malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:

" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."

Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:

"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."

The FAA is also advised to be more judicious in passing orders and not mindlessly endorse the reply/ information provided by the CPIO.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, considering the ordeal of issue flagged by the Appellant regarding the blatant denial of receipt of representation by the various wings of the Ministry, a copy of this order is marked to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests to look into the matter; and also streamline their system to keep an update of receipt of daks/ complaints.

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 / Copy marked to look into the matter -

To The Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change. Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road, New Delhi - 110 003 INDIA.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission