Central Information Commission
Tarun Gupta vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 27 June, 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/2022/655699
Tarun Gupta ......अपीलकता /Appellant
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 : 26/06/2023
Date of Decision : 26/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/08/2022
CPIO replied on : 29/08/2022
First appeal filed on : 02/09/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 06/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/10/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"(a) certified copies of Notification/Circulars/letter of constitution the State Expert Appraisal Committee, Himachal Pradesh by Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi w.e.f 13th July, 2021 to 30th May, 2022.1
(b) certified copies of any correspondence between Member Secretary SEAC Himachal Pradesh regarding any extension/convene the meeting of SEAC in Himachal Pradesh after the expiration of the tenure of said committee i.e I3th July 2021.
(c) certified copies of any correspondence between Member Secretary SEIAA, Himachal Pradesh regarding any extension/convene the meeting of SEIAA in Himachal Pradesh after the expiration of the tenure of said committee i.e 13th July.
(d) certified copies of correspondence, noting and any letters in which permission has been requested by the SEIAA, Himachal Pradesh for opening of web state portal of MoEF, New Delhi for uploading.
(e) certified copies of correspondence, noting and any letters in which permission has been requested by the SEIAA, Himachal Pradesh for opening of web state portal of MoEF, New Delhi for uploading agenda/proceedings of the committee for Environmental Clearance.
(f) certified copies of notification no. SO 2346 (E) dated 16.06.2021 issued by MoEF &CC, Gol,
(g) certified copies of request letter send by Member Secretary, HPSEIAA or any competent Authority of Himachal Pradesh Vide Letter No. F.No SEIAA/2008/22-Vol.IIV-1169 dated 06.08.2021 for extension of validity for another period of six months and reactivation of the login credential of HPSEIAA and HPSEAC portal for uploading agenda/proceedings of the committee for Environmental Clearance.
(h) certifies copies of approval send by MoEF & CC Monitoring Cell vide email address [email protected] on dated 06.08.2021 for extension of validity for another period of six month and reactivation of the login credential of HPSEIAA and IIPSEAC portal (i.e. 31.12.2021) for uploading agenda/proceedings of the committee for Environmental Clearance.
(i) certified copies of the Names, Contact no along with designation of officers who gave approval by sending email from MoEF & CC Monitoring Cell vide email address [email protected] on dated 06.08.2021 for extension of validity for another period of six month and reactivation of the login credential of HPSEIAA and HPSEAC portal (i.e. 31.12.2021) 2
(j) certified copies of the Names, Contact no along with designation of officer who send the above point no. 9 approval by sending email and handling the email address monitoring-ecOnic.in on dated 06.08.2021."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 29.08.2022 stating as under:
"1. The Notification S.O. No. 2346(E) dated 16.06.2021 is available in the Ministry's Website at https://moef.gov.in/en/rules-and-regulations/esz- notifications "
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2022. FAA's order, dated 06.09.2022, directed the CPIO to facilitate providing information as admissible and transfer the application to the concerned CPIO in the Ministry for necessary action.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, 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: Dr Veenu Joon, CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with CPIO's reply on the following arguments -
"....
RTI Application Submitted by Information Given by MoEF&CC Applicant Vide application dated 01-08- On dated 29.08.2022 The reply given is 2022 information sought under reproduced as under:- RTI Act 2005 Sr. No. 1 to 10. "The Notification S.O. N. 2346€ (Annexure-"A") dated 16.06.2021 is available in the Application No. Ministry's website at MOENF/R/E/22/00810 Https://moef.gov.in/en/rules and regulations/esz-notifications/"
(Annexure-B).
On dated 13.09.2022 The Monitoring Cell of 3 the IA Division of the Ministry has no information in this regard (Annexure-C).
Appeal was made to Appellant The reply to this application given on Authority on dated 02.09.2022 dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure-"E"). (Annexure-"D") Appeal was made to CIC on dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure-"F") Date of notification for SEIAA and SEAC committee constituted on 13th July, 2018 to 12th July, 2021 (for three years) Date of notification for next SEIAA and SEAC committee constituted 1st June, 2022 to 10th May, 2025 (for three years).
Period:13th July, 2021 to 30th May, 2022 there is no notification found on the Website of MoEF&CC regarding SEAC and SEIAA for Himachal Pradesh as separate notification has been uploaded on the website of MoEF&CC like Chatissgharth even after the Notification S.O. N. 2346€ dated 16.06.2021. Copy attached at Annexure-G. The following meeting of SEAC/SEIAA held without any committee constitution. Sr. No. Date of Meeting held No of SEAC Meeting held
1. 16-09-2021 81st
2. 11-10-2021 82nd
3. 29-11.2021 83rd
4. 29.12.2021 84th Sr. No. Date of Meeting held No of SEAC Meeting held
1. 18-09-2021 54th
2. 08-11-2021 55th
3. 24-12.2021 56th
4. 20.01.2021 57th ....."
The Appellant further argued that a point wise reply addressing all the queries has not been provided to him till date.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the CPIO has not appeared before the bench for hearing despite receipt of hearing notice on 13.06.2023 as per 4 postal tracking record. Therefore, in order to facilitate due assistance, special effort has been made by the Registry attached with the bench to contact the CPIO through phone. During hearing, the CPIO outrightly denied the receipt of hearing notice and explained the fact that perhaps it has been missed out due to administrative communication gap with her central Registry. She further sought time as she was not carrying the case file and was therefore, not aware of the facts and figures.
Considering the fact that the Appellant was already connected through video conferencing mode, and with efflux of time, the Bench does not find it justified to adjourn the matter any further and went ahead with the hearing proceedings.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the reply provided by the CPIO is not very cogent and was not in conformity with the provisions of RTI Act.
Nonetheless, it is also not of place to note that the information sought by the Appellant at points no. b, c, d & e do not even conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act; as the Appellant has sought for clarifications/ inferences to be drawn by the CPIO. For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant 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 they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. 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, 5 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) 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) However, considering the prayer of Appellant, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of impugned RTI Application and provide a revised point wise reply along with relevant available information as per the provisions of RTI Act against points a, f, g, h , i and j of the RTI application. The said reply should be provided by the 6 CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of order under due intimation to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission adversely viewed the system of receipt of letters in the Respondent's office as the Bench had to make special efforts to get the CPIO on board during hearing , despite the fact that the hearing notice had already been received in the Respondent's office on 13.06.2023.In view of this and considering the casual approach of CPIO towards the proceedings of the Commission, the present CPIO, Respondent public Authority is hereby directed to send her written submission explaining the reason for her absence which only shows her disregard towards the proceedings of the Commission which is in violation of the provisions of RTI Act. The aforesaid written explanation of the CPIO along with supportive documents, if any should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
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 / 7