Central Information Commission
Saravanan K vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 24 October, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MOENF/A/2017/183612/MP
Appellant : Shri Saravanan K., Chennai
Public Authority : Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate
Change, New Delhi
National Centre of Sustainable Coastal
Management, Chennai
Date of Hearing : October 4, 2017
Date of Decision : October 24, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present, Ms. Pooja Kumar, President of Fishing
Co-operative Society - through VC
Respondent : Ms. Pooja Ramachandran, Scientist 'G', Shri M.
Dharmaraj, Sr. Scientist Consultant, NCSCM -
through VC
RTI application : 10.8.2016
CPIO's reply : 18.8.2016, 2.9.2016
First appeal : 13.9.2016
FAA's Order : 10.10.2016
Second appeal : 31.10.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Saravanan K., the appellant, sought to know whether or not National Centre of Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) had submitted Delineated High Tide Line (HTL), Ecologically Sensitive Area (CRZ I) and Cadastral data for Tamil Nadu; format in which the above said data had been submitted; soft copies of the above said data in the format submitted by NCSCM, through nine points.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Coastal Zone Management Authority, informed the appellant that the subject matter of his RTI application pertained to NCSCM, Chennai and MoEF&CC and transferred the RTI application to the CPIOs concerned for responding to the appellant, directly. The CPIO, NCSCM, gave a point wise response to the appellant's RTI application and advised the appellant to deposit sum of Rs. 2,46,39,000/- to enable the CPIO to provide soft copies of HTL data and Ecologically Sensitive Area (CRZ I), as submitted by NCSCM to CZMA Tamil Nadu, under points 3 & 6 of the RTI application. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), NCSCM stating that the CPIO was obligated to provide public information sought under the RTI Act, 2005 to the applicant as per the cost provided in the RTI Rules, 2012, according to which, a fee of Rs. 50/- would be charged in order to provide information in the form of CD/floppy/diskettes. The appellant, therefore, requested the FAA to direct the CPIO to provide the desired information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant. The FAA informed that disclosure of HTL and Ecologically Sensitive Area (CRZ I) information for Tamil Nadu, as sought by the appellant, would prejudicially affect the scientific and economic interest of NCSCM and was, therefore, exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA further stated that HTL and Ecologically Sensitive Area (CRZ I) information for Tamil Nadu was already in public domain and available on the website of Dept. of Environment, Tamil Nadu and also advised him to contact the department for further details. Aggrieved with the FAA's response, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating his request for providing the information sought by him as it was not denied initially by the CPIO, in public interest and to impose penalty upon the CPIO for wrongfully denying the information sought.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he was a local fisherman and was assisted by Ms. Pooja Kumar, President of Fishing Co- operative Society in his submissions before the Commission. The appellant's representative stated that Fishing Co-operative Society was a registered NGO to provide support to fishing communities and in pursuance of that he sought the Delineated High Tide Line (HTL), Ecologically Sensitive Area (CRZ I) and Cadastral data for Tamil Nadu from National Centre of Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM). The CPIO asked the appellant to deposit an amount of over Rs. 2 crores for providing the data sought in the RTI application which was unjustified and unreasonable as the appellant had sought public information and he had a right to access the same under the RTI Act, 2005. Ms. Pooja Kumar, however, stated during the hearing that they had received information on Delineated High Tide Line (HTL) from the State Govt. of Tamil Nadu (point 1 of the RTI application dated 10.8.2016) in another RTI application but, no information received by the appellant on point 2 relating to Ecologically Sensitive Area (CRZ I).
4. The respondent stated that NCSCM had completed HTL and ESA mapping for the entire area and submitted to the State Govt. of Tamil Nadu in March 2017. However, the information sought is still pre-mature as it was not vetted by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change and thereafter, the final HTL and ESA maps would be submitted by the end of October to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and will also be put up in public domain. Until the approval of new maps by MoEF&CC, the maps pertaining to 1996 were valid and also available on the website. Further, since the data would be finally given to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, it was the responsibility of the State Govt. concerned to put the maps in public domain, inviting suggestions and objections from the general public. Public consultation would be conducted by the District Collector wherein rights of the fishermen were of primary importance and part of the integrated process. The respondents stated that the CPIO had inadvertently sought the fees for providing information from the appellant which was later withdrawn by the FAA. The respondents from MoEF&CC were not present for the hearing despite the notice for hearing having been duly sent to them.
5. On hearing both the parties and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that the CPIO has appropriately responded in the matter since the information sought had not been finalized and it would not have been correct on the part of the respondent authority to disclose the same at the stage of CPIO's reply. Further, after the submission of Delineated High Tide Line (HTL), Ecologically Sensitive Area (CRZ I) and Cadastral data for Tamil Nadu by NCSCM and consequent approval by the authority concerned, complete information would be available in public domain for the suggestions from the general public including the fishing community. The Commission, however, finds that the CPIO should not have asked the appellant to deposit a huge amount of over 2 crores for providing the information to the appellant as he had sought the same from the respondent authority under the RTI Act, 2005, which, if disclosable, was to be provided by charging fees as prescribed under the RTI Rules, 2012 only. The Commission directs the CPIO, MoEF&CC (IA-CRZ Division), New Delhi to submit his explanation for not attending the hearing, within a week of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Ministry of Environment, Forests & Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Climate Change, Scientist-D (IA-CRZ Division), Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi - 110 003 New Delhi - 110 003 National Centre of Sustainable Coastal Management, Scientist 'G' & Division Chair, FTR Division, Koodal Building, Anna University Campus, Chennai (T.N.) - 600 025 Shri Saravanan K., The Coastal Resource Centre, 92, 3rd Cross Street, Thiruvalluvur Nagar, Basant Nagar, Chennai (TN) - 600 090