Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Karan Bhatia vs Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi on 26 November, 2025

                                केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/CPCBD/A/2024/114693

Karan Bhatia                                          .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
CPIO
Director & CPIO-(UPC-II),
Central Pollution Control
Board (MoEF&CC), Parivesh
Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar,
Delhi-110032.                                         .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    25.11.2025
Date of Decision                    :    26.11.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    18.12.2023
CPIO replied on                     :    17.01.2024
First appeal filed on               :    15.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    14.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    10.05.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

"As per Rule 5 of Schedule II of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (amended up to date), state the coverage of Extended producer responsibility and Rule 5.1 (i) to (iv) defines category of plastic packaging.

Please inform me the category under which Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) falls viz category I,II, III, IV."

2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 17.01.2024 stating as under:

"This has reference to the above said RTI application dated 03.01.2024. It is to inform you that, as per provision 5.1 of the EPR Guidelines for Plastic Packaging. categories I, II, III, and IV are defined as follows, irrespective of plastic raw materials:

1) Category I Rigid plastic packaging

2) Category II Flexible plastic packaging of single layer or multilayer (more than one layer with different types of plastic), plastic sheets or like and covers made of plastic sheet, carry bags, plastic sachet or pouches

3) Category III Multilayered plastic packaging (at least one layer of plastic and at least one layer of material other than plastic);

4) Category IV Plastic sheet or like used for packaging as well as carry bags made of compostable plastics."

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 14.03.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Advocate Atul Chauhan, representative of the Appellant attended the hearing in person.

Respondent: Shri Mayank Raj Purbey, Scientist 'B', attended the hearing in person.

6. The representative of the Appellant stated that the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application is not satisfactory.

7. The Respondent submitted that the information as available in the records has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 17.01.2024.

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has provided the relevant information to the Appellant as available in their records and under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and in the form held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The CPIO is neither supposed to create information that is not a part of the record, nor is he required to interpret information nor provide clarification. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case for further adjudication.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date CIC/CPCBD/A/2024/114693 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)