Central Information Commission
Mr. Praveen Kumar vs Central Empowered Committee on 11 December, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/000137
Dated December 11, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr. Praveen Kumar
Name of the Public Authority : Central Empowered Committee
Adjunct to order dated 12.03.2009 in the captioned matter
1. The Commission vide the captioned order dated 12th March 2009 had decided the
instant case while directing as follows:
".....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..."
2. Pursuant to this order, a communication was received from the CEC dated 13.05.09 seeking a review of the decision of the Commission.
3. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 26, 2009 and a hearing notice dated 29.10.2009 was accordingly sent to the parties.
4. Mr. Neeraj Kumar duly authorized representative represented the Complainant.
5. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jiwrajka, Member, Central Empowered Committee represented the Respondent.
6. The submissions of the Respondent states that admittedly the "...CEC, as it stands today, has been constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 14.12.2007....". Perusal of the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the very opening lines clarifies that the said order was passed "...In supercession of all previous orders regarding constitution of the Central Empowered Committee......"Thus it is clear that in any case, the CEC is a creation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to carry out certain specific functions vested with specific powers to do so. It is an undisputed fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is itself a Public Authority and a Committee constituted by a Public Authority cannot claim to be otherwise. It is furthermore pertinent to note at this stage that it is not factually incorrect that the constitution or rather the very initiation/conceptualization of the Central Empowered Committee occurred vide the Supreme Court order dated 09.05.2002 and subsequently formally constituted vide a notification dated 17.09.02 issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests under Section 3 (3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. A copy of the Supreme Court order dated 09.05.2002 and also the notification dated 17.09.2002 as published in the Gazette of India available on record have been relied while passing the decision by the Commission. The constitution of any body or corpus can be altered and reconstituted from time to time but that by no way invalidates the initial date or order of constitution or creation of the corpus.
7. The contention of the Respondent as made in the submission dated 12.03.2009 was in any case considered and incorporated in the decision of the Commission dated 12.03.2009. However, it is pertinent to note that the facts that the hearing notice was received late or plea of adjourning the date of hearing since a personal hearing was sought, had never been stated before the Commission before. Accordingly, the Commission proceeded with its decision dated 12.03.2009 based on material available on record. In any case, even in the instant application seeking review, the Respondents have not brought any fresh material on record warranting de novo look at the matter. All the submissions made in the instant application have been clearly dealt with and adjudicated while passing the impugned decision. In my opinion, the instant application lacks merit and no review lies in this case. Moreover, although the order dated 12.03.2009 had been sent to the present address of the Respondent at Chanakya Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, the delay in seeking the review has also not been explained by the Respondent. Thus the Application being delayed without any reasonable explanation is dismissed even on this ground, since this would defeat the purpose of attaining finality of adjudication of cases.
The Judgment in this case was reserved and pronounced in open Court on December 11, 2009.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar 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 nd 2 Floor, Chanakya Bhawan, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi - 110 021.
3. Officer in charge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC