Central Information Commission
Shreya Padukone vs North Eastern Regional Office, ... on 4 July, 2023
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/NEROS/A/2021/656630
Shreya Padukone ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
RTI Cell, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/07/2023
Date of Decision : 03/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/03/2021
CPIO replied on : 21/06/2021
First appeal filed on : 11/08/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 27/08/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/11/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.03.2021 seeking the following information:
"...This is with respect to proposal number FP/ACUHYD/7696/2014 before the Forest Advisory Committee concerning the diversion of 1165.66 ha (including 91.331 ha underground area) of forest land for construction of Etalin Hydro 1 Electric Project (EHEP) (3097 MW) in Dibang Valley District of Arunachal Pradesh by M/s Etalin Hydro Electric Power Company Limited, Arunachal Pradesh.
Please make it convenient to provide the following information sought from the State Government on the recommendation of the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) meeting on 23.04.2020.
1. The revised cost benefit ratio analysis (C/B ratio) for the project as per the latest Guidelines of the MoEFCC. The Regional Office of MoEF&CC, Shillong was associated with this analysis exercise.
2. Details of the forest area including the KML files, which FAC sub- committee had recommended to be surrendered /reduced.
This is with reference to Ministry's letter of even number dated 25.06.2020 (attached as a supporting document below) and the subsequent letter dated 08.08.2020."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 21.06.2021 stating as under:
"Please refer to your RTI application cited above under reference transferred to PCCF office by CPIO, MoEFCC vide letter dated 07.04.2021. Through this application information has been sought in respect of 'Etalin Hydro Electric project.' As the information in question pertains to third party and consent for disclosure has been sought from them vide letter dated 28.04.2021.
M/s Etalin Hydro Electric Power Company Limited does not want to disclose information till FAC reconsiders it. Therefore, information is denied under section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.08.2021. FAA's order, dated 27.08.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on following grounds -
2"No reason or basis supplied for the information being found by the FAA to be rightly denied by the PIO. The issues raised in the First Appeal (enumerated below) have not been answered as to why the information requested continues to be classified as third party information and disclosure denied.
1. Nature of information requested does not qualify for any exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. Exemption can be claimed under Section 8(1)(d) only with respect to information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, in the nature of commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property. Some information can be the third party such as those involving patents or design of the project, but the ratio analysis cannot be said to be third party information.
2. Information requested by the RTI applicant can be made public by the State without the consent from the project proponent. Consent for disclosure need not be sought from Etalin HEP Co. Ltd. since it is information identified for suo motu disclosure under the Order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated February 29, 2012 (Refer to CIC order in Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/001409/17503, in the matter of Shibani Ghosh v. MoEFCC, attached as Supporting document 1.
3. Larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information. As such, the information has been sought by the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) while discharging their duties for the purpose of their deliberations for carrying out the appraisal of the project. Larger public interest is also an exception to denial of information under the Section 8(1)(d) exemption provision.
Hence the FAA has erred in claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d) purportedly considering that disclosure of the following information shall harm the competitive position of a third party.
The information sought is not qualified for any exemption since the information concerns larger public interest."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-3
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Charan Jeet Singh, Scientist D & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 30.06.2023 wherein he inter alia stated as under -
"2. The CPIO after examination of the said RTI application found that information had not been provided by the State Government for so far. Since information was not available in the Forest Conservation Division. Accordingly, a copy of RTI application was transferred to the State PIO, O/o PCCF, Arunachal Pradesh to provide the information directly to the applicant as available with them, vide CPIO's letter dated 07.04.2021. (Annexure II)
3. Relevant records pertaining to dispatch & Speed Post are also enclosed.
(Annexure III)
4. State Government vide their letter dated 31.08.2020, received through electronic communication dated 27.07.2021 forwarded the revised Cost Benefit analysis. Said information is available in the public domain and may be accessed at www.parivesh.nic.in .
In view of the foregoing submission, it is mentioned that CPIO, performing his duties within the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005 has dealt with the RTI application and disposed of the same by providing the information/documents to the applicant as available in the relevant records maintained by the Forest Conservation Division of the MoEF&CC. Reply of the CPIO may kindly be considered and taken on record by the registry of CIC."
While summing up his arguments, the CPIO again emphasized the fact that since the actual custodian of information sought is the State Government authority ; therefore, the instant RTI Application was transferred to the State PIO, O/o PCCF, Arunachal Pradesh vide letter dated 07.04.2021. Accordingly, the State Government vide their letter dated 31.08.2020, received through electronic communication dated 27.07.2021 forwarded the revised Cost Benefit analysis and now the relevant information , as on date, is now available in public domain and can be accessed at the website www.parivesh.nic.in .
Decision:
4The Commission upon a perusal of records and after considering the submissions of the CPIO finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO now as it is found to be as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Moreover, the Appellant did not avail of the opportunity to plead her case or contest CPIO's submissions despite receipt of hearing notice.
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
However, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission free of cost with the Appellant through email immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5