Central Information Commission
Priya vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 26 August, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOENF/C/2022/601224
Priya ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change,
(SU Division), RTI Cell,
Prithvi Wing, 6th Floor,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi-110003
2. The CPIO,
Directorate General of Foreign Trade,
RTI Cell, Udyog Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 25/08/2022
Date of Decision : 25/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 13/12/2021
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
1
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 08.11.2021 with the CPIO, DGFT/ Respondent no. 2 herein seeking the following information:
1.) "As per the notification no. 56/2015-2020 and public notice 74 dated 18.02.2019issued by DGFT, MOEF & CC has recommended a yearly quota of 310MT of Red Sanders to be exported. Are Value Added products( furniture, artifacts , oil etc) also included in this 310 MT or there is no limit for exporting Value Added Products of Red Sanders ?
2.) If an exporter has applied for export of 50 MT of red sanders with complete proper required documents, and out of 310MT allocated quota only 150 MT has been exported and rest is still available for export , is he allowed to export 50MT or less ?
3.) What are parameters for allocating quantity of red sanders( both in log form & Value added products procured from a legal source) to be exported to an applicant?
4.) How many applications complete in all aspects for export of Red sanders has been received from 01.04.2017 to 08.11.2021 and how many of them have been given permission for exporting the same? ( please provide the exporter wise& year wise details of quantity of red sanders exported)
5.) How many incomplete applications seeking permission for export of Red sanders have been received from 01.04.20217 to 18.10.2021 and if any of them is still pending or not.( person/company wise).
6.) If an application complete in all aspects seeking permission for exporting red sanders is received, but the allocated 310MT quota has been exhausted in that year , whether he will be allowed to export next year or his application will be rejected as the origin certificate issued from forest department will expire after two months from the date of issue of the certificate. So, now whether he has to file a fresh application alongwith the new origin certificate in the next year or the same will be considered?
7.) What is the minimum export price decided by the govt for exporting Red Sanders?"
The CPIO/ Respondent no. 1 furnished a point wise reply to the complainant on 13.12.2021 stating as follows:-
"1. Yes 2
2. The information sought under this point is not covered under RTI Act, 2005, the information cannot be provided.
3. The Ministry does not allocate red sanders quantity to ab applicant for export.
4. The information pertains to Directorate General of Foreign Trade, your application is transferred to DGFT with a request to provide available information.
5. The information pertains to Directorate General of Foreign Trade, your application is transferred to DGFT with a request to provide available information.
6. The information sought under this point is not covered under RTI Act, 2005, the information cannot be provided.
7. The Ministry does not fix minimum export price for exporting red sanders."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent no. 1: Sanjay Kumar Chauhan, Astt. Inspector General of Forests & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
Respondent no. 2: Ram Paul Singh, Export Cell (Non Scomet) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the Complainant vide written submission filed prior to hearing has sought exemption from participating in the hearing and requested the Commission to decide her case on merits.
The Respondent no. 1 submitted that the instant RTI Application has been received by their office on transfer from Respondent no. 2 and the same was duly replied on 13.12.2021 along with relevant inputs against all points of RTI Application. While for points no. 4 & 5, the RTI Application was transferred back to the DGFT to provide information directly to the Complainant.
The Respondent no. 2 submitted that the reply in response to points no. 4 & 5 has been furnished to the Complainant on 31.12.2021. No additional information is left at their end.3
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record does not find any scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought for as well as the reply of the CPIOs' provided thereon; as the queries raised by the Complainant are more in the nature of seeking clarifications to be drawn by the CPIO which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The Complainant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Complainant's attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors.
[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not 4 have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIOs during hearing is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Having observed as above and considering the absence of the Complainant during hearing, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 6