Central Information Commission
Prasad Shashikant Khale vs National Centre For Sustainable ... on 30 August, 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/NCSCM/A/2022/615392 +
CIC/NCSCM/A/2022/615400
Prasad Shashikant Khale ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
FIR Division, National Centre
for Sustainable Coastal Management
RTI Cell, Anna University
Campus, Chennai-600025, Tamilnadu .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/08/2022
Date of Decision : 22/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/10/2021 & 17/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 02/11/2021 & 16/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 22/11/2021 & 22/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 20/12/2021 & 20/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/03/2022 & 15/03/2022
CIC/NCSCM/A/2022/615392
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 05.10.2021 seeking the following information:1
i. "Details of Technical scrutiny committee for Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs).
ii. Kindly furnish copies of the following information as described: a. Please provide minutes of all the meetings held by Technical Scrutiny Committee for discussion of CZMPs of Maharashtra.
b. Composition of technical scrutiny committee for CZMPs along with details of all the members including contact information.
c. OM or order constituting technical scrutiny committee. d. Terms of reference of technical scrutiny committee. e. Please provide comments and suggestions of technical scrutiny committee on draft and final CZMPs of Maharashtra prepared under CRZ 2019. f. Please provide representations received from MCZMA, NCZMA, & MoEF&CC on draft and final CZMPs of Maharashtra prepared under CRZ 2019. g. Kindly provide copies of representations received from public on draft CZMPs of Maharashtra along with action taken report on the same. h. Copies of all the correspondences, including electronic communication. i. Copies of all the related documents, annexures, along with file notings. j. Copies of PowerPoint presentations made during the meetings of technical scrutiny committee.
k. If information is voluminous, please arrange to provide this on a CD."
The CPIO furnished a para wise reply to the appellant on 02.11.2021 stating as follows:-
Para No. a, e to k:- The CZMPs of Maharashtra have not yet been approved by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Govt. of India. The process of approval of the CZMP of Mumbai city and Mumbai sub-urban districts is still ongoing and the CZMPs have not yet been certified. The CZMPs of the remaining coastal districts of Maharashtra have not yet been approved. Thus, the information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the same cannot be provided.
Para b, c & d:- A copy of the order constituting the technical scrutiny committee for CZMPs, containing the details of the members and Terms of reference, is annexed."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.11.2021. FAA's order dated 20.12.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO in response to para b, c, d. However, FAA further directed the CPIO to provide relevant information against para a, e, f, 2 g, j and k within 10 days of publication of the approved/certified CZMP Maps in the website of MCZMA. With regard to para h & I, the FAA observed that such queries are held to be frivolous.
CIC/NCSCM/A/2022/615400 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 17.10.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "Provide copies of CZMP-Report of Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts mentioned in Annex-1 of the Guidelines for Updation of Coastal Zone Management Plan (QM?) Prepared as per CRZ Notification, 2011 to align It with CRZ Notification, 2019.
2. Provide copies of the checklist issued to all authorised agencies & State Government by Technical Scrutiny Committee constituted by NCSCM, draft of which is at Annex-2 of Guidelines for Updation of Coastal Zone Management Plan KEMP) Prepared as per CRZ Notification, 2011 to align It with CRZ Notification, 2019.
3. Please provide copies of draft-updated-C2MP and draft-GIMP finalized by the State of Maharashtra sent to MoEF&CC for final approval along with covering letter.
4. Provide copies of draft-updated-CZMP and draft-CZMP after technical scrutiny by Committee constituted for task by NCSCM, Chennai along with covering letter."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 16.11.2021 stating as follows:-
Point No. 1:-The CZMPs of Maharashtra have not yet been approved by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Govt. of India. The process of approval of the CZMP of Mumbai city and Mumbai sub-urban districts is still ongoing and the CZMPs have not yet been certified. The CZMPs of the remaining coastal districts of Maharashtra have not yet been approved. Thus, the information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the same cannot be provided.
Point No. 2, 3 & 4:-The CZMPs of Maharashtra have not yet been approved by the Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change, Govt. of India. Thus, 3 the information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the same cannot be provided now.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.11.2021. FAA's order 20.12.2021 held as under:-
Point No. 1:- "CPIO to provide the said report as available, within 10 days of publication of the approved/certified CZMP maps in the website of (MCZMA).
Point No. 2:- CPIO to provide the said checklist as available, within 10 days of publication of the approved/certified CZMP maps in the website .of (MCZMA).
Point No. 3:- Draft updated CZMP is already published and is available in the MCZMA website for public hearing purposes. The said draft CZMPs finalized by the State of Maharashtra and sent to MoEF&CC will be available only with MCZMA. These are not available in NCSCM. The Appellant has also approached MCZMA, Mumbai for the said information, thus there is no need to transfer the Application to MCZMA. He may obtain the same from MCZMA.
Point No. 4:- Draft updated CZMP is already published and is available in the `MCZMA website for public hearing purposes. CPI0 to provide the said draft- CZMP after technical scrutiny by Committee as available, within 10 days of publication of the' approved/certified CZMP maps in the website of (MCZMA)."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8 (1)(h) of RTI Act, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented through Goenka present through video-conference. Respondent: Dr. Purvaja Ramachandran, Scientist 'G'/ Division Chair & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Rep. of Appellant at the outset apprised the Commission regarding the profile of the technical role which the Respondent organization plays under the administrative Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, Government of 4 India. He further stated that he is aggrieved by the blanket denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act by raising the following arguments -
"xxxx a. The appellant had filed a request for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, Chennai dated 17.10.2021 requesting inter alia for records concerning CZMP of Mumbai and MSD prepared under CRZ 2019. Copy of RTI application is annexed as Annexure A. b. xxxx c. The PIO and the First appellate authority have both erroneously relied on Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 to reject the appellant's request for information. Section 8 (1) (h) is not relevant at all and has no application in the context of the information sought by the appellant.
xxxx d. It is clear that for this Section to apply, the information sought should impede the "process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders". In other words, if the information is not connected to any investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders, then this Section has no applicability.
e. xxxx f. It is submitted that the information sought relates to file preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans under the CRZ Notification, 2011. It DOES NOT pertain to investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In Directorate Enforcement v Deepak Mahajan (AIR 1994 SC 1775), it was held that investigation is 'nothing but an observation or inquiry into the allegations, circumstances or relationships in order to obtain factual information make certain whether or not a violation of the law has been committed?. The preparation of the CZMP maps do not involve a process to determine whether a violation of the law has occurred or not -- it is a process of preparing plans for CRZ areas covered under the CRZ Notification involving no investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
Assuming without admitting that Section 8 (1) (h) is attracted, it is for the authority to show how the information sought would impede the investigation.5
xxxx i. The PIO and the appellate authority have also failed to see that under the CRZ Notification, 2019, the draft CZMPs have to be placed in public domain and a public hearing has to be held before its finalization (Please see annexure IV of CRZ Notification, 2019). Therefore, the information sought pertains to subject matter that by law, have to be placed in the public domain.
Further, it is seen from the impugned order that the authority has stated that any request for 'all correspondence' makes the request frivolous and can be rejected.
xxxxxxx k. This information is important to understand the decision making process and the nature of application of mind in the process of formulating the draft CZMPs. In M.J. Sivani and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (1995) 6 SCC 289, the Hon'ble Court has succinctly held that "Reasons are the link between the order and the mind of its maker."
I. The process of formulation of the subject draft CZMPs and the considerations therein are essential to ensure effective public participation when the draft CZMPs are placed for public hearing. People have a right to participate in environmental decision making and that is the reason why a public hearing is provided by law -- however, participation in these hearings without necessary information, renders the process an empty formality.
in. In fact, information such as this should be placed in public domain voluntarily by the authorities as required under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. It is unfortunate that the PIO and the appellate authority have both failed to see this aspect and have illegally rejected the request for information. n. It is submitted that the order impugned is illegal and liable to be set aside and the information sought by the appellant ought to be furnished by the PIO without any delay...."
In response to it, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards her written submission dated 19.08.2022 wherein she reiterated their averred replies regarding denial of information at paras a, e & k of RTI Application in case no. CIC/NCSCM/A/2022/615392 under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act on the plea that draft maps/report of MCZP are still under approval of the concerned authorities and the same would be published upon approval.6
The Appellant interjected to contest the inaction of the Respondent organization in not incorporating the exact figure of survey numbers in their report while uploading the same on the website which was outrightly denied by the CPIO. Further, the CPIO apprised the Commission that there is no denial for disclosure of information sought in toto, only it was subject to outcome of the approval of the concerned competent authorities which is 'National Coastal Technical Zoning Authority' of Maharashtra State Government which at present has approved report of only five Districts and the remaining District's reports is yet to be finalized. The CPIO submitted that upon receipt of complete approval from the Committee members, the report as sought for will be made public and the same can be accessed from their website. Lastly, the CPIO agreed to abide by the direction of the Commission.
Decision:
The Commission upon perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties at length considered the main premise of this Appeal and concededly, there is no provision in the RTI Act that makes the non- disclosure of information contingent upon grant of approval of "higher/competent authorities". It is apparent beyond reasonable doubts that the CPIO has erred in providing an irrelevant initial reply to the Appellant by denying the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act in as much as the RTI Applications have not sought for approval of files under consideration at the relevant time. Rather, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO at the first instance should have applied his mind and redacted that extract of file (under consideration) which attracts the relevant applicable exemption clause of Section 8/9 of RTI Act and provided the remaining portion of information by invoking Section 10 of RTI Act. Further, if it were the case that the CPIO did not have the relevant records with him and was aware of the concerned record holder, he was at liberty to invoke Section 5(4) of the RTI Act for seeking the assistance of the concerned record holder in order to render due assistance to the RTI Applicant as espoused in Section 5(3) of the Act. However, the then CPIO has failed to discharge their duty as per the Act in the instant cases.
The above said conduct of the concerned then CPIO amounts to unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and also is in grave violation of the provisions of RTI Act. In view of this, the CPIO is strictly cautioned to exercise due diligence while responding to RTI Applications in future and should not blindly apply the exemption clause of Section 8/9 of RTI Act.7
In view of the aforesaid observations, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of RTI Applications and provide a revised point wise separate reply along with the relevant available information as sought for in RTI Application(s) after redacting the names and identifying particulars of the Committee Members/other third parties, if any, which may figure in the noting/comments/report keeping in view the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and can be severed in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act.
The aforesaid replies and information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Further, it will be in the best interest of National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management to upload all kind of reports/maps on their website under suo-moto disclosure in order to avoid the multiplicity of RTI Application seeking similar information.
The appeal(s) are 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 / 8