Central Information Commission
Mr. D Nandan Loharuka vs Central Empowered Committee on 11 December, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/000637
Dated Dec 11, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr. D Nandan Loharuka
Name of the Public Authority : Central Empowered Committee
Background
1. The Applicant Mr. D Nandan Loharuka filed an RTI request on 30.12.2008 with the Member Secretary, Central Empowered Committee [hereinafter referred to as 'the CEC'], constituted under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He requested for point-wise detailed information about the WCL Nagpur which operated the Tawa-1 Coal Mines despite order dated 14.03.07 passed by the CEC. The following were the four queries asked by the Applicant:
i. Information about Report of CCF Regional Office, Bhopal as directed by CEC vide letter no. 1-26/CEC/SC/2006-PL XVII dated 25.08.2006; ii. Whether the changed DFO, Betul MP was justified or empowered to withdraw a Forest Offence on 12.06.2006, when the matter was sub judice before the Hon'ble CEC interalia Hon'ble Supreme Court. Also what action had been taken against the said DFO, Betul, MP for harboring offenders and altering contents of POR No. 21639/15 dated 10.11.2000, and the report of Forest Committee dated 07.02.2002; iii. Action taken on review Application against Application 344/2004 th decided on 14 March 2007, in view of misinterpretation of the CEC verdict;
iv. Penalty proposed for Non-action or Non-compliance of CEC order by MP Govt against WCL, Forests, MPEB.
2. The Member Secretary, CEC vide his response dated 06.01.09 enclosed a copy of the order dated 14th March 2007 passed by CEC in Application 344 of 2004 reiterating that the said decision had been passed after considering the submissions of the parties during hearings held before the CEC on 19.08.04,15.09.04 and 23.08.06.
3. Aggrieved by the response of the CEC, the Applicant herein filed a First Appeal on 17.02.2009 alleging that information supplied to him was irrelevant and misleading. Since his attempts at procuring relevant and specific information from the Respondent had proved futile, the Applicant simultaneously filed a Complaint before the Central Information Commission on 17.02.2009. In his complaint, the Complainant challenged the letter dated 06.01.2009 received from the CEC alongwith the CEC order dated 14.03.2007 passed in Application No. 344/2004 and non compliance thereof by respondents and the verdict of CEC passed on 23.08.2006 and inaction thereupon. In his complaint before the CIC, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent CEC had intentionally harbored the WCL Nagpur alongwith the Coal Ministry, which committed fraud, and were engaged in illegal contracts violating the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, despite CEC order dated 14th March 2007. It was also contended by the Complainant that the report dated 18.08.03 of the Committee headed by Sh. M M Wakhare for payment of compensation, which now stood at Rs. 6.288 crores (as on 26.04.08) had also been denied by the aforementioned WCL Nagpur as also the Coal Ministry. Hence the Complainant sought that the illegal Tawa-1 Coal Mines being run by WCL despite the order dated 14.03.2007 passed by the CEC be discontinued until payment of compensation as already discussed hereinabove.
4. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 26, 2009 and hearing notice dated 20.10.2009 was accordingly sent to the parties.
5. The CEC sent its reply to the Commission dated 28.10.2009 in response to the CIC notice and also rebutting the instant Complaint. In the response, the CEC has specifically contended that the CEC has been constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a specific task. It is not the appropriate body for settling of claims of civil nature between various parties or directing/taking action against the State Government or other authorities since they do not work under the control and supervision of the CEC. Instead it is the Hon'ble Supreme Court which takes decision directing further action based on the reports submitted by the CEC. The instant matter being the Application No. 344/2004 referred by the Complainant is also sub judice and pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for decision. It has further been contended by the CEC that the available information in this regard has already been provided by the CEC to the Complainant. In so far as report of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests and withdrawal of Forest offence by the DFO, Betul is concerned, it is the contention of the CEC that the same pertains to the MoEF and the State of MP respectively. However it is not clear from the Respondent's submissions as to whether the aforesaid information has been supplied/endorsed to the Complainant.
5. Alongwith its aforesaid submissions, the CEC also submitted a copy of its application dated 13.05.2009 seeking review of the earlier order dated 12.03.2009 of this Commission passed in Case No. CIC/AD/C/2009/000137 whereby this Commission had declared that CEC is a Public Authority being constituted under orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which in itself is a creation of the Constitution and hence a Public Authority. Since both the Cases involve the similar fundamental question to be decided, as to "Whether the CEC is a Public Authority", hence it was decided that both the cases be tagged and heard together. Accordingly vide notice dated 30.10.2009, this case was also listed with the Review application listed in CIC/AD/C/2009/000137 on 26.11.2009.
6. Sh. M K Jiwrajka, Member represented the CEC.
7. The Applicant was present in person during the hearing.
Decision
8. While it was agreed by the representative of the Respondent that the information as sought by the Complainant in the instant case would be provided subject to the decision on the Review application filed by the Respondent; the more fundamental question that remains to be decided is as to whether the CEC is a Public Authority or not. Before dealing with this question it is essential to discuss the origin/creation of the CEC. It is undeniable as is evident from the order dated 09.05.2002 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supported by Gazette notification dated 17.09.2002 that the body named CEC owes its origin to the order dated 09.05.2002 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was subsequently notified vide Gazette notification dated 17.09.2002 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. It is the contention of the Respondent in the Review Application that the CEC as it stands today has been constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 14.12.2007. The said order dated 14.12.2007 begins "In supercession of all previous orders regarding constitution of the Central Empowered Committee...." thereby indicating that the CEC as a body had already been formed by some earlier order viz. order dated 09.05.2002, language whereof is self explanatory to indicate the conceptualisation of CEC. In any case, it is not a disputed fact that the CEC was formed by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which in itself is a creation of the Article 124 of the Constitution. So it is undisputed that CEC is a creation of a Public Authority.
9. In their submissions, the Respondents have laid emphasis on the fact that the CEC, as it stands today, after the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, is a completely reconstituted, remodeled organisation. In this context, it is important to examine the constitution of the CEC as it stood on the date of its creation i.e. in 2002. The notification dated 17.09.02 issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 reveals that the Committee at that time comprised of three officers from the Ministry of Environment & Forests out of the total five member committee. It is not clear as to subsequently how many of the original members continued in the Committee. However it has been learnt that vide an order dated 17.04.09 the erstwhile Member Secretary of the CEC has handed over charge to Sh. Sanjeev Chaddha, an Indian Forest Service (IFS) Officer of the 1989 batch and belonging to the Orissa Cadre. Mr Sanjeev Chaddha had earlier served in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and has been involved in various activities of CEC in the past specially conducting site visits. Thus, even as on date, the CEC continues with Government officers as part of the Committee. Such a scenario cannot be seen in any private organisation. The Respondents have not submitted any argument to the contrary. The contribution and link between the CEC and the Government cannot be thus overlooked even on this count.
It is undisputed that the final accountability of the CEC is before the Hon'ble Supreme Court thus the control and supervision over the CEC is by a Public Authority. The annual accounts of CEC are submitted for audit purposes before the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, like all Public Authorities and not audited by private Auditors or Accountants. The CEC is thus controlled, supervised by and hence accountable to Public Authority/s viz. the Supreme Court and the CAG.
10. The CEC has contended that it is not substantially financed by the Central or State Government further elaborating during the hearing that the funds for the operation of CEC are received by way of interest accrued on the various fines/penalties deposited as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Any sum collected by way of fine/penalty etc is liable to be deposited in the Consolidated Fund of India and should ideally form a part of the Government Exchequer. Even the interest accrued thereupon cannot be considered to be private property. It is nothing but an indirect share of the same public money named the Consolidated Fund of India and a body that is run and operated out of public resources falls within the Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005 being "....substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government...". The CEC is substantially financed also because it has been provided administrative support in the form of office accommodation, infrastructure etc all of which are paid out of the consolidated fund of India. Having dealt with each individual contention of the respondent, the Commission, once again arrives at the decision that the CEC is a Public Authority. Hence, it is directed that the Respondent in the capacity of a Public Authority must comply with the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 and forthwith appoint a CPIO and a First Appellate Authority and take all necessary measures to comply with the Sections 4(1), 4(2) & 5(1) of the RTI Act 2005. A report of compliance shall be sent by the Respondent to the Commission indicating the compliance of the Sections 4 (1), 4(2) & 5(1) of the RTI Act 2005, within a month from the receipt of this order.
11. The purpose for creation of the CEC was to monitor certain specific tasks assigned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court mainly relating to violation of various Environment Acts. Thus the mandate of law requires that CEC deals with the environment related issues qua the various State enactments and authorities. Majority of the cases referred to the CEC are Public Interest Litigations involving the interest of the public at large. In any case Environment in itself is concern of the public since it impacts every single individual. The issues dealt with by the CEC are thus not confidential nor do they involve any secrecy. Thus there can be no hindrance in providing any information as are in the custody of the CEC since the same are prepared with a view to be submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the information would in any case become a part of public records. Hence it is directed that information as available with the Respondent Public Authority as sought in the RTI application, be furnished to the Complainant before 15th January 2009.
12. The Case is accordingly disposed of.
The Judgment in this case was reserved and pronounced in open Court on December 11, 2009.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Sh. D Nandan Loharuka 62-A, Sai Mahima Colony, Chinch Bhuwan Wardha Road Nagpur
2. The Central Empowered Committee Constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court nd 2 Floor, Chanakya Bhawan, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi - 110 021.
3. Officer in charge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC