Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs National Biodiversity Authority on 5 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NBDAT/C/2023/648632
Naresh Kadyan ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
National Biodiversity
Authority, 5th Floor, TICEL
Bio Park, CSIR, Road,
Taramani, Chennai - 600 113 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.07.2024
Date of Decision : 04.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 22.08.2023
First appeal filed on : 02.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"Adams Bridge, also known as Ramas Bridge or Rama Setu, is a chain of natural limestone shoals, between Pamban Island, also known as Rameswaram Island, off the south-eastern coast of Tamil Nadu, India, and Mannar Island, off the north- western coast of Sri Lanka. Geological evidence suggests that this bridge is a former land connection between India and Sri Lanka.Page 1 of 5
The feature is 48 km (30 mi) long and separates the Gulf of Mannar (southwest) from the Palk Strait (northeast). Some of the regions are dry, and the sea in the area rarely exceeds 1 metre (3 ft) in depth which makes it difficult for a boat with a keel to pass over it.
Guidelines for selection and management of the Biodiversity Heritage Sites: Under Section 37 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, the State Government in consultation with local bodies may notify in the official gazette, areas of biodiversity importance as Biodiversity Heritage Sites.
Under sub section (2) of Section 37, the State Government in consultation with the Central Government may frame rules for the management and conservation of BHS.
Under sub section (3) of Section 37, the State Governments shall frame schemes for compensating or rehabilitating any person or section of people economically affected by such notification. Considering the above provisions of the Act, the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) issued the guidelines for selection and management of the BHS.
In the presence of Viyana Berwal, remembering my visionary parents, Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds, with OIPA: Indian People for Animals, passed resolution, to declare Ram Setu, as Biodiversity Heritage Sites, under section 37 of BD Act, 2002.
State Biodiversity Board of Tamilnadu, may place agenda and approved, whereas NBA may issue regulations, as Guidelines for selection and management of the Biodiversity Heritage Sites.
1. Supply action taken on the above said position, along with MOEAF-E-2023- 0001651: GOVTN-E-2023-0003800
2. Supply complete recommendation and history of 44 Biodiversity Heritage Sites, as notified but Ram Setu, Ram Janam Bhumi Ayodhya, Mathura Shri Krishna Janambhumi, Bodh Gaya, was never considered, along with Jyotisar for Gita, Ajanta Ellora caves etc.
3. Status of Ram Setu, related all representations and petitions."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 22.08.2023 stating as under:
"1. The said petition was already disposed by providing appropriate information. In order to get further information in this regard, the applicant may approach the concerned state Government.
2. The Applicant may check the below link for the list of BHS notified in India:
National Biodiversity Authority - Biodiversity Heritage Site (nbaindia.org) Page 2 of 5
3. The requested subject matter does not covered under the purview of National Biodiversity Authority and hence no such information is available with this office"
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.09.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, Administrative Officer-cum-CPIO, attended the hearing through VC.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance.
The Respondent submitted that an adequate reply in terms of RTI Act has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 22.08.2023.
A written submission has been received from the Complainant vide letter dated nil and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"Prayers:
1. RTI Act, 2002 never been appreciated, concealed information as desired. 2.
Complaint has been lodged, CPIO supplied some documents directly to the CIC, without endorsing me, whereas CIC is a duty bound, to protect the interest of all legal mechanism, including article 51A of Indian Constitution, against payment from public funds, being public servant."
A written submission has been received from Shri N. Venkatraman, Administrative Officer-cum-CPIO, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"I, N. Venkatraman, Administrative Officer (i/c), National Biodiversity Authority, Chennai and the Central Public Information Officer of the National Biodiversity Authority do hereby solemnly submit this statement on the RTI application.Page 3 of 5
1. An application under RTI Act, 2005 filed by Shri. Naresh Kadyan from Delhi originally addressed to National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) on 03.08.2023. Reply was furnished to the appellant by the CPIO on 18.08.2023. The appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellant Authority and the reply was furnished on 06.09.2023.
2. The National Biodiversity Authority is a statutory body established to regulate the access of biological resources by various stakeholders.
3. The information sought was related to Biodiversity Heritage Sites: The verbatim of the related provision from the Biological Diversity Act is as follows:
Without prejudice to any other law for the time being in force, the State Government may, from time to time in consultation with the local bodies, notify in the Official Gazette, areas of biodiversity importance as biodiversity heritage sites under this Act. (2)The State Government, in consultation with the Central Government, may frame rules for the management and conservation of all the heritage sites. (3)The State Government shall frame schemes for compensating or rehabilitating any person or section of people economically affected by such notification.
Based on the above provision the appellant was informed accordingly that the information sought does not fall under the purview of the NBA. In addition, a link of the web page with the list of BHS notified in India was also shared to the appellant.
4. The National Biodiversity Authority being a statutory body and autonomous body at the apex level, regulates the access of biological resources as per the provisions of the Biological.
Diversity Act, 2002 and promptly takes action on RTIs with utmost sincerity. Therefore, it is humbly requested that the Hon'ble Information Commission may close the application as the fact has been intimated to the appellant."
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause by the CPIO. The Commission observes that an adequate reply in terms of the RTI Act has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 22.08.2023, hence, no mala fide is established against the Respondent.
The Commission would like to counsel the Complainant that in a Complaint case filed u/s 18 of the Act, no further direction for disclosure of information can be made as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011, wherein is was held as under:-
Page 4 of 5"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Complaint.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Sh. Naresh Kadyan C-38, Rose Apartment, Prashant Vihar, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)