Central Information Commission
Shri.Brijesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Environment And Forests on 16 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000306/17751
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000306
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Brijesh Kumar
R/o: Flat No.22, Pocket-B,
Om Apartment, Sector-14,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078.
Respondent : Mr. A. B. Akolkar
Public Information Officer & Scientist "F"
Central Pollution Control Board Ministry of Environment & Forests, O/o The Scientist F, CPCB, Parivesh Bhawan, C.B.D., Cum-Office Complex, East Arjun Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110032.
RTI application filed on : 20/07/2011
PIO replied : 26/07/2011
First appeal filed on : 25/08/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 01/09/2011
Second Appeal received on : 24/01/2012
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. What are the Guidelines/rules about the solid The Rules/guidelines framed under the Municipal Solid
waste Management in metro cities and Airport? Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 are attached
Whether CPCB issue the individual authorization at Annexure-l. CPCB does not issue any authorization under
for the said Rules. The concern State Pollution Control Board
collection/receiption/treatment/transport/disposal/ (SPCB)/Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) has been segregation/recycling for the same? To whom it mandated to issue authorization under the Rule 6 (3) of the has been issued so for since 2007 to till date. MSW Rules, 2000. Provide the name and address of companies.
2. Is there any monitoring State Pollution Control Boards have been mandated to committee/cell/department regarding the above monitor the compliance of the MSW Rules in a city/Airport subject matter. How it monitors? under the Rule 6(1) of the MSW Rules, 2000.
3. Is there any monitoring Information on constitution of monitoring committee/cell/department regarding the above committee/cell/department for monitoring MSW management subject matter particularly for Airports. How it may be obtained from the Concern State Pollution Control monitors? Board.
4. Whether the handling of Solid Waste is being As per the Rule 4 (1) of the MSW Rules, 2000 Every handled by Govt. agencies or private? Any Municipal authority is responsible for implementation of the License or Authorization should be required, if provisions of the MSW Rules within the territory. As per yes, who issues the same and what are the criteria Rules (2), the Municipal authority or an operator of a facility to issue the authorization/license? should apply in Form-I for the authorization from the State Pollution Control Board. The criteria details given in Annexure-1.
5. Till date how many companies have been issued The information regarding issuing authorization to companies the authorization to handle the solid waste at IGI for handling MSW in IGI Airport may be obtained from airport and other airport? Presently who is Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC).
Page 1 of 2handling (upgrading company) or it is Sublette.
Provide the details. How far is the ware house of the company from the airport where they are dumping the waste. What they are doing/handling the waste. Are they recycling or simply dumping.
Whether they have any recycling certificate.
6. The companies upgrading Airports are bound to The information regarding issuing authorization to companies follow the guidelines of Solid waste management for handling MSW in IGI Airport may be obtained from issued by you or they have their own guidelines? Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC).
7. Is there any report/complained received by you of CPCB has not received any complaint for violation of violation of guidelines at airport. If yes, what are guidelines at Airport. the action has been taken?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information received by the PIO within time period.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"As the reply is already provided to appellant and FAA is satisfied with the information given".
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
"Unsatisfactory reply from PIO and no personal hearing was done by FAA".
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. A. B. Akolkar, Public Information Officer & Scientist "F";
The Respondent states that he has provided the information available as per records to the Appellant. The Appellant has not indicated the reasons for his dissatisfaction with the information provided by the PIO.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records appears to have been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 16 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 2 of 2