Central Information Commission
Rajendra Singh vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 5 October, 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/MOENF/A/2022/ 637835
RAJENDRA SINGH ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Environment,
Forest & Climate Change,
HSM Division, 6th Floor Jal Wing,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Aliganj, Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi-110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/09/2023
Date of Decision : 27/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/01/2022
CPIO replied on : 02/02/2022
First appeal filed on : 03/03/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 10/05/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/07/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.01.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1.) Copies of all objections/suggestions received by MOEF & CC through hard copy, mail etc., persons likely to be affected there by in respect to the said draft issued for utilisation of flyash vide GSR285(E), dated 22 April 2021, by MOEF & CC, GOVT of India, New Delhi.
2) Meaning of alternative products, as mentioned in MOEF & CC notification S.O. 5481(E), dated 31/12/2021, at B-8, Page 17. Copies of all correspondences with any other department, which helped in defining alternative products.
3) Copies of all Minutes of Meetings, held between MOEF & CC & various Fly ash stake holders, in period 22 April 2021 to 31 Dec. 2021.
4) Copies of all orders/directions issued to MOEF & CC by judicial authorities in respects to above Fly ash notification S.O. 5481 (E), dated 31/12/2021, In Period between 22/4/2021 to 31/12/2021.
5) Copies of all note sheets, which is prepared/maintained /proceeded in MOEF & CC Prior to publication of Fly ash draft No. 285 (E) dated 22/04/2021, and notification S.O. 5481(E) dated 31/12/2021. Means copies of all note sheet prepared/ available from 01/04/2021 to 31/12/21 which is prepared from scientist level to Minister MOEF & CC in respect to flyash draft dated22/4/2021 and its notification dated 31/12/2021.
6.) Copies of all notice to call meetings and their after its Minutes of Meetings, its note sheets, office orders, issued after meetings, conducted between MOP & MOEF & CC from 01/01/21 to 31/12/2021 for publication of Fly ash utilisation draft dated 22/4/2021 and Notification dated 31/12/2021."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.02.2022 stating as under:
"The information sought by you is voluminous and will consume considerable amount of time for identification of information. In view of the above, you are requested to inspect the records during the office hours for identification and obtaining information."2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.03.2022. FAA's order, dated 10.05.2022, held as under:
"Based on the submission made by the CPIO and appeal submitted by the appellant, it is observed that the information sought is voluminous in nature and will consume considerable amount of time for identification of information. Appellant is requested to contact the CPIO to inspect the records during the office hours for identification and to obtain the information after paying the fees as per the rule 4 of RTI, 2012."
In compliance with the FAA's Order, the CPIO vide letter dated 08.06.2022, replied as under:
"With reference to the order of First Appellate Authority dated 10.05.2022 regarding an appeal made by you on RTI applications, you are requested to inspect the records during office hours for identification of relevant information and obtaining the information after making the payment of fee as per RTI rules 2012.
The Section Officer is requested to arrange for inspection and making records available to the appellant during office hours."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, 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: N Subrahmanyan, CPIO present in person.
The written submission of the Appellant is taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date no information was provided to him by the Respondent.3
The Respondent submitted that as per the directions given by the FAA, the CPIO advised the Appellant to inspect the relevant records in their office as per RTI Rules 2012 but the Appellant did not turn up for inspection.
Decision:
Now, in the instant case, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the Appellant has concededly sought for information in a cumbersome and unspecific manner referring to a multitude of records and without a mention of any specific time period/information. In the said circumstances, the Commission deems it fit to accord the liberty to the CPIO to facilitate the available information to the extent it does not render diversion of disproportionate resources of public authority as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
The Commission therefore directs the CPIO to facilitate a last opportunity of inspection of the available and relevant records related to the inspection of the information sought in the RTI application to the Appellant on a mutually decided date & time. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO telephonically and in writing. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record, the CPIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
Copy of documents that the Appellant desires during the inspection shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost up to 50 pages, for pages exceeding this limit, CPIO may charge prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012.
The above directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission incorporating a report of the inspection facilitated to the Appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5