Central Information Commission
Sunil Kumar Khandelwal vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 15 November, 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/MOENF/A/2022/104525
Sunil Kumar Khandelwal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, RTI
CELL, INDIRA PARYAVARAN
BHAWAN, JOR BAGH ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/11/2022
Date of Decision : 14/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28/09/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 16/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22/01/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.09.2021 seeking the following information:
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.11.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Dr Amit Love, Scientist- E & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that a detailed point wise reply along with relevant information has already been provided to the Appellant on 13.10.2022, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for ready reference -2
"....This has reference to RTI application dated 28th September 2021 (copy enclosed), wherein the following information was sought (i) action taken on a representation (copy enclosed) sent by the applicant (Shri Sunil Kumar Khandelwal) on 13th September 2021, (ii) all authenticated correspondence in this regard, and (iii) time required to take action on the issue.
The representation relates to prohibiting use of single use plastic tags on TMT bars in order to mention name of manufacturer instead ask the manufacturers to use tags made from TIN sheet. The said representation was sent to the CR section of the Ministry.
xxxxxxx
(i) Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules, 2021, notified on 12th August 2021, banned identified single use plastic items, which have high littering potential and low utility with effect from 1st July 2022. The said notification is in the public domain and is available and accessible.
(ii) Further, as per Rule 4 (4) of the Plastic Waste Mar-7-ement (Amendment) Rules, 2021, any fresh prohibition on single use plastic item would come into effect only after ten years from the date of publication of such notification. The relevant extract is quoted below "(4) Any notification prohibiting the manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale and use of carry bags, plastic sheets or like, or cover made of plastic sheets and multi-layered packaging and single-use plastic, including polystyrene and expanded polystyrene, commodities, issued after this notification, shall come into force after the expiry of ten years, from the date of its publication." The said notification is in the public domain and is available and accessible on the website of the Ministry."
(iii) The banned single use plastic items have identified based upon the report of Expert Committee on Single Use Plastic constituted by Department of Chemical and Petrochemicals, Government of India in 2019. The report is also in public domain and available and accessible on the website of the Department of Chemical and Petrochemicals, Government of India (https://chemicals.nic.in/sites/default/files/SUP Expert Committee Report.pdf).
(iv) The Expert Committee has not identified plastic tags on TMT bars as single use plastic items for banning. The Committee recommended the phase out of identified single use plastics, which had low utility and high adverse 3 environmental impact, as early as possible (pg 15 to 17 of the Report). The following five factors of "Utility" were considered by the Committee i.e. (i) Product Safety; (ii) Essentiality; (iii) Social Impact; (iv) Economic Impact, & (v) Hygiene. The following five factors have been considered for assessing the "Adverse Environmental Impact" i e. (I) Collectability; (ii) Recyclability; (iii) End nS Life (EoL) Solutions; (iv) Impact of alternative on the environment & (v) The Littering Propensity. Hence, there is no further action contemplated on the representation with respect to plastic tags on TMT bars.
(v) The Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules, 2021, notified on 12th August 2021 and the report of the Expert Committee on Single Use Plastic constituted by Department of Chemical and Petrochemicals, Government of India is annexed.
(vi) It is submitted that there was no intention to withhold any information from the applicant. Further, the information was already available in public domain much before the date of application of the RTI applicant.
(vii) The delay in provision of information is inadvertent and deeply regretted by the CPIO. The CPI0 undertakes that timelines prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005 will be adhered in the right earnest. The CPI0 also submits that the inadvertent delay was also in part due to spec al circumstances imposed in the work environment due to COVID 19 pandemic. The CPIO deeply regrets for any inconvenience caused due to the inadvertent delay and seeks to condone the delay for the reasons aforesaid stated...."
In response to it, the Appellant affirmed the receipt of the averred reply and stated that he is fully satisfied with the same. He further stated that he does not want any additional information.
Upon Commission's instance, both the parties facilitated a detailed discussion on the repercussions of the Plastic Waste Management rules and ban of single use plastic items.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to information 4 sought and reply provided by the CPIO as it is an admitted fact that the Appellant is fully satisfied with the information.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission takes grave exception to the factum of delay caused by the CPIO in providing a reply to the Appellant after the stipulated time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act. In this regard, even if, the Commission take cares of the fact i.e. challenges faced by the entire world owing to COVID pandemic, it cannot lose sight of the fact that the CPIO kept waiting for a long period till receipt of the hearing notice for taking any effective action in the matter. Such conduct of the CPIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is in grave violation of the provisions of RTI Act.
In view of the above, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and always follow the timelines mandate while responding to any RTI Application in future.
The appeal is 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 / 5