Central Information Commission
Hilaluddin vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 24 May, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/MOENF/A/2018/106156/00718
File no.: CIC/MOENF/A/2018/106156
In the matter of:
Hilaluddin
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer/ Under Secretary
Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change
Indira Paryavaran bhavan, Ali ganj, Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi - 110 003
&
Central Public Information Officer
Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education
Directorate of Forest Education,
PO - New Forest, Dehradun - 248 006
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 04/12/2017 CPIO replied on : 02/01/2018 First appeal filed on : NIL First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 15/01/2018 Date of Hearing : 23/05/2019 Date of Decision : 23/05/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Raman Nautiyal, Scientist E & CPIO, Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education, Shri S Dhawan, Course Coordinator & CPIO, FRI deemed University, Shri S K Thomas, Deputy Conservator of Forests, FRI and 1 Shri J M Bisht, Superintendent, Directorate of Forest Education, present over VC.
Information Sought:
1. Provide certified copies of OM/ Order/ DO Letter/ Any Other Document indicating - delegation of powers to the Director, Directorate of Forest Education, Dehradun (hereinafter called DFE) that empowers him/ her to grant No Objection Certificate (hereinafter called NoC) to the IFS officers while on deputation to the DFE along with related file noting(s) of the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (hereinafter called MoEF&CC) starting from initial note prepared by the competent authority with subsequent remarks of the higher officers, if any, and up to approval accorded by the decision making authority of the ministry for delegation of above powers.
2. Provide certified copies of OM/Order/DO Letter/ any other Document indicating -delegation of powers to the then Director, DFE empowering him to grant NoC to his wife Dr Savita vide letter No. 2-35-ll/DFEl2OO7/1635 dated 21.08.2008 while she was on deputation to the DFE and posted as Principal of State Forest College, Dehradun along with related file noting(s) of the MoEF&CC starting from initial note prepared by the competent authority with subsequent remarks of the higher officer(s), if any, and up to approval accorded by the decision making authority of the ministry for delegation of powers for issuance of said referred NoC.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondents during Hearing:
The CPIO submitted that whatever information was available with them with regard to the subject matter, the same has been provided to the appellant on
02.01.2018 within the prescribed time limit. .He further submitted that the appellant has filed more than 48 RTI applications with the same public authority, more or less concerning the similar subject matter and all the applications have been duly replied by the concerned Departments.
Observations:
At the outset, since 06 matters were filed by the same appellant against the same public authority which were listed for hearing on the same day, hence for 2 File no.: CIC/MOENF/A/2018/106156 clarity of the facts of each of the separate RTI applications and to ensure the appropriate CPIO is responding during the hearing, , the Commission started with the brief facts of each case. However, the appellant expressed his strong objection to the same, while refusing to accept even the briefing of the case by the Commission and desired to explain the background of his instant matter first. The Commission while maintaining the decorum of the proceedings tried to accommodate the appellant to the extent possible. However, he kept on displaying an extremely intemperate behaviour, questioning the integrity of this bench and expressed complete lack of faith in the justice delivery mechanism of the Commission. He also used unparliamentarily language before the bench and the officers who attended the hearing, showing utter disregard to the bench and left the VC centre in haste in the midst of the hearing which was the last of the six cases.
However, the Commission has perused the facts on record and takes up the case on its merits. It is noted that a reply to the present RTI application has been provided to the appellant on 02.01.2018 wherein it has been stated that the Director Forest Education, being Head of the Directorate, exercises powers of Head of Department in all administrative and financial matters. The issuance of NoC being an administrative matter, the DFE therefore issues NoC in such matters. On an enquiry by the Commission whether there is any other order with regard to the subject matter of the RTI application, the CPIO submitted that whatever was available with them has been provided to the appellant and there is nothing more existing on record. The Commission considers the reply dated 02.01.2018 as proper as per the submissions made by the CPIO during the hearing.
In this regard, attention of the appellant is drawn to the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. judgment dated 09.08.2011 which is relevant here :
"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. This is clear from a combined reading of section
3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under 3 clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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."
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for action in the matter in as much as the CPIO has replied as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant was therefore asked to state what relief is sought at this stage, but instead he chose to walk out of the hearing.
The Commission warns the appellant to be cautious of his tone and tenor while appearing before the bench in future hearings and to refrain from becoming emotional and aggressive and disturbing the peace of the proceedings.. In case such behaviour is reflected again, he may be barred from appearance before the bench.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) 4 File no.: CIC/MOENF/A/2018/106156 A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5