Central Information Commission
Mr. Praveen Kumar vs Central Empowered Committee on 12 March, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/000137
Dated March 12, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr. Praveen Kumar
Name of the Public Authority : Central Empowered Committee
Background
1. The Applicant Mr. Praveen Kumar filed an RTI request on 14.10.2008 with the CPIO, Central Empowered Committee [hereinafter referred to as 'the CEC'], constituted under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He requested for various information about the violation of the Wildlife Preservation Act, 1972; Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Supreme Court orders; action taken against violations, certified copies of the Statute/Act which empower the CEC to exempt offenders who had admittedly violated the provisions of the Wildlife Preservation Act, 1972 as well as the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and those who had expressly infringed the Supreme Court orders on various occasions, despite clear observation by the CEC itself in its order dated 10.07.2008. While raising these queries about the order dated 10.07.2008, the Appellant has categorically contended that according to the basic principle of criminal law a person is liable for the punishment prevailing at the time of commission of the offence giving examples of cases still being tried under POTA & TADA. It has been clearly stated in the RTI request that at the time of the violations, the affected area was part of the notified Wildlife Sanctuary and reserved forest area wherein felling of large of trees and merger of the area took place without the permission of the Supreme Court. The Applicant also sought information about the number of cases reported against IFS officers involved in violation of the aforesaid Acts and Supreme Court orders and number of cases in which action was recommended/taken against such errant officers by the CEC. The Applicant in his RTI request has inter alia raised further queries about the nature and basis of the deposit of Rs. 1 crore made by Irrigation Department as per CEC's order dated 10.07.2008 in IA No. 1046/2007, as also about the next date of hearing in the relevant IA No. 2191-93/08 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court after 27.08.2008 etc.
2. The Applicant filed an Appeal dated 26.12.2008 with the Central Information Commission on not receiving any reply from the CPIO. While referring to his RTI request, the Applicant, in his Appeal before the Commission, alleged that the CEC was established by a notification of the Central Government, in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is being totally financed by the Central Government and hence it is a Public Authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act 2005. However, despite being a Public Authority as defined in the RTI Act 2005, the CEC has not appointed any CPIO or First Appellate Authority as is mandatory for every Public Authority and has not complied with Sections 4(1) (b) (xvi) and 5(1) of the RTI Act 2005. The Appellant in his appeal made a three fold prayer before the Commission seeking information from the CEC as per his RTI request, seeking direction of the Commission for the appointment of CPIO and also appropriate action under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 against persons responsible for denial of information.
3. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for March 12, 2009 and a hearing notice dated 26.02.2009 was accordingly sent to the parties. The CEC sent its reply to the Commission dated 12.03.2009 rebutting the Appellant's contention about the establishment of the CEC and funding thereof by the Central Government. The Respondent, CEC has placed reliance on the orders dated 14.12.2007 and 21.02.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby the CEC was established. The Respondents have averred that despite directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no funds have been provided by the Central Government [precisely the Ministry of Environment and Forests], as incorrectly maintained by the Complainant, and that the expenses of the CEC are met out of funds placed at its disposal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, the CEC has placed on record a copy of its order dated 10.7.2008 whereby the Respondent had decided the issue with respect to the violations of the various Acts and the orders of the Apex Court.
4. No one represented the Public Authority.
5. The Applicant vide his letter dated 06.03.2009 sought exemption from personal presence on the date of hearing on account of his unavailability in town.
6. The submissions of the Respondent vide their communication dated 12.03.2009 record the contention that the RTI application was primarily filed for preventing the construction of the Hansi - Butana Canal through the Saraswati Wildlife Sanctuary land and to recommend to the Hon'ble Supreme Court for action against the guilty officials. According to the CEC, after examination of the relevant information, it was decided not to recommend to the Hon'ble Supreme Court for initiating action against the concerned officers of the State of Haryana and for which the reasoned order was passed on 10.07.2008. Perusal of the order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the CEC reveals that in the paragraph 7 of the said order, while the Respondent has observed the acts of violation of the provision of Forest Conservation Act, Wildlife Protection Act as also complete disregard of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the CEC has condoned all the acts of infringement of law and contempt of the Apex Court on the basis of subsequent approvals and with a warning not to repeat such violations.
7. The Respondent has further submitted that it is not an Authority notified by the Central Government, and stated that the expenses of the CEC are met out of funds placed at its disposal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hearing
8. Issue
i) Whether the CEC is a Public Authority as defined in the RTI Act 2005, and liable to comply with the mandatory provisions of the RTI Act 2005? And
ii) Whether the information as sought by the Appellant are liable to be furnished by the Respondent in the capacity of a Public Auhtority?
Decision
9. In the light of the foregoing submissions of both the parties, it would be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines a "Public Authority" as under:
"2(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted--
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any--
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed ,directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;"
10. The term "Public Authority" as defined u/s 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 therefore, means any authority or body or Institution established or constituted by or under the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India is an Institution created under provisions of the Article 124 of the Constitution and is, therefore, a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. Hence, any body or authority created under orders of a Public Authority; in this case, the Supreme Court of India, is also a Public Authority. The CEC being constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 09.05.2002 and 09.09.2002 and formally constituted vide a notification dated 17.09.02 issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is by all means a Public Authority as defined under provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The foregoing discussion thus decides the First Issue and it is evident that the CEC being a body created and accountable to a Public Authority as also being wholly financed by a Public Authority, owes its origin and existence to a Public Authority viz the Supreme Court of India and is beyond doubt in itself also a Public Authority.
11. The Respondent in the communication dated 12.03.2009 has nowhere contradicted the CEC's entity as a Public Authority. Hence there can be no explanation nor exemption for a Public Authority in denying any information sought by any citizen invoking the RTI Act 2005. With respect to the Respondent's contention justifying the non appointment of CPIO on the ground that the information with the CEC is available in public domain and is provided even without RTI application, while such furnishing of information by the Respondent is appreciated, the Commission is of the opinion that the CEC, in the capacity of a Public Authority, not being above law, is bound by the law of the land like all other Public Authorities. Accordingly, the Respondent in the capacity of a Public Authority must comply with the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. Hence the Respondent is directed to forthwith appoint a CPIO and a First Appellate Authority and take all necessary measures to comply with the Sections 4 (1), 4(2) & 5(1) of the RTI Act 2005. A report of compliance shall be sent by the Respondent to the Commission indicating the compliance of the Sections 4 (1), 4(2) & 5(1) of the RTI Act 2005, within a month from the receipt of this order.
12. It is evident from the RTI request itself that the Appellant is in possession of the order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the CEC and all the information sought by him are based on the said order itself. The information as sought by the Appellant are clearly not a part of the orders/Reports/Advise provided by the Respondent on a regular basis. At the same time, the information sought by the Appellant are quite relevant since the same relates to violation of Acts and also orders of the Apex Court. Hence, the Commission in its considered opinion directs that the Respondent shall furnish all available information as sought by the Appellant in his RTI request detailing all the points within a month of receipt of this order. Information may be denied by the Respondent only by seeking appropriate exemption under the relevant provision of RTI Act, 2005.
13. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Sh. Praveen Kumar Room No. 255 Old, Brahmaputra Hostel, JNU New Delhi
2. The Central Empowered Committee Constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2nd Floor, Chanakya Bhawan, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi - 110 021.
3. Officer in charge, NIC 4 Press E Group, CIC