Central Information Commission
Jatin S vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 31 August, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOENF/C/2022/615194
Jatin S ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change, RTI
Cell, Indira Paryavaran
Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi-110003. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30/08/2022
Date of Decision : 30/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 05/02/2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 05.02.2022 seeking the following information:1
"According to a UN report, the livestock industry and rearing cattle produce more greenhouse gases than all the vehicles combined. Has the ministry conducted audits on livestock industry emissions? What are the mitigation steps the ministry has taken to curb livestock industry emissions? How much water does the Indian livestock industry consume every year?"
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Ajay Raghava, Joint Director (CC) & CPIO along with Kunal Kumar present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO at the outset apprised the Commission that upon non-receipt of response, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2022 with the FAA which was disposed of on 02.05.2022 intimating him the hyperlink from where India's Biennial Updated Reports can be accessed. The FAA has further directed the CPIO to provide relevant information free of cost to the Complainant within 3 days. He further submitted that in compliance of FAA's order, a para wise reply along with a copy of the relevant UN's report, which runs into more than 1400 pages has already been provided to the Complainant free of cost through email/ speed post vide letter dated 05.05.2022. Lastly, the CPIO volunteered to resend a copy of reply along with enclosure to the Complainant through speed post and also via email.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought for as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon; as the Complainant has sought for clarifications/inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on his interrogatories. In this regard, the Complainant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that 2 they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"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.........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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) 3 And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply provided by the CPIO along with a copy of India's Biennial Updated Report to assist the Complainant is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Moreover, as regards the delay in reply from the CPIO's side, the Commission is not inclined to initiate any penal action against the CPIO for the want of malafide attributed on his part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the 4 information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Having observed as above and also in the absence of the Complainant during hearing to plead his case or contest CPIO's submission, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO. Thus, no action is warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5