Central Information CommissionMohammed Arif vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 17 August, 2022Author:Saroj PunhaniBench:Saroj Punhaniके   ीय सूचना आयोग\n                        Central Information Commission\n                            बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका\n                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\n\nFile No : CIC/MOENF/A/2021/655859\n\nMohammed Arif                                           ......अपीलकता /Appellant\n\n                                      VERSUS\n                                       बनाम\nCPIO,\nMinistry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,\nImpact Assessment Division, RTI Cell,\nIndira Paryavaran Bhawan, Vayu Wing,\n6th Floor, Aliganj, Jor Bagh Road,\nNew Delhi-110003                                 ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent\n\nDate of Hearing                   :   16/08/2022\nDate of Decision                  :   16/08/2022\n\nINFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani\n\nRelevant facts emerging from appeal:\n\nRTI application filed on          :   13/10/2021\nCPIO replied on                   :   28/10/2021\nFirst appeal filed on             :   05/11/2021\nFirst Appellate Authority order   :   18/11/2021\n2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   23/11/2021\n\nInformation sought:The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2021 seeking the following\ninformation:1The CPIO replied to the appellant on 28.10.2021 stating that the information\nsought is not covered undersection 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005.Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.11.2021. FAA's order\ndated 18.11.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO and further observed as under:-"........2. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has\nnotified the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, as amended\nfrom time to time, which deals with the process to grant Environmental Clearance\n(EC). While granting environmental clearances under these Notifications, various\nconditions and environmental safeguards are stipulated which are required to be\nimplemented by the project proponent during various stages of project cycle. The\nobjectives of Post-Project Clearance Monitoring are (i) to ensure that actions have\nbeen taken to incorporate the environmental safeguards during the project cycle\nin accordance with the conditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance\nletter; and (ii) to take appropriate corrective measures to check adverse Impact on\nenvironment during operation of the respective projects. Monitoring of projects\nwith respect to conditions stipulated in the environmental clearance issued under\nE1ANotification, 2006 and Coastal Regulation Zone(CRZ), 2011 is carried out\nthrough the nineteen Integrated Regional Offices(IROs). The monitoring report is\nscrutinized in the Ministry and on that basis appropriate action is contemplated\nunder theEnvironment (Protection) Act, 1986for non-compliance of\nenvironmental clearance conditions. Based on the observations made during field\nvisit, necessary follow up action is taken with the project proponents in respect of\nmonitored projects to ensure an effective compliance to EC conditions. The\nmonitoring cell in the Ministry examines the monitoring reports submitted by\nRegional Offices. In cases of major non-compliance, further follow up action is2taken for effecting compliance including issue of show cause notice followed by\ndirections underEnvironment (Protection) Act, 1986on case to case basis. Further,\nit is also informed that rules and regulation is available in public domain on\nMinistry's website i.e envfor.nic.in."Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of desired information, the\nappellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:The following were present:-Appellant: Present through video-conference.Respondent: Munna Kumar Shah, Scientist D & CPIO present through intra-video\nconference.The Appellant vehemently expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply by\nstating that he has never sought information in the form of question/answers as\nwrongly observed by the CPIO.The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 12.08.2022,\nrelevant portion of which is reproduced below in verbatim -"....2. It is to inform that RTI Application no. MOENF/R/P/21/00435 dated\n  22/10/2021 (online portal) and dated 13/10/2021 (physical letter) by Shri\n  Mohammad Arif has been replied (Annexure I) by the then CPIO on 28/10/2021 i.e.\n  within stipulated timeline of 30 days as perRTI Act, 2005. Further, First Appellate\n  Authority has also replied (Annexure II) to the applicant in details on 18/11/2021\n  regarding the procedure being followed by Ministry in case of monitoring of projects\n  wherein Environment Clearance has been granted to the projects.3. It is further submitted that the applicant has asked the information in form of\n  questions and not specified/pinpointed the desired information. The earlier CPIO has\n  accordingly replied that the information sought is not covered under definition of\n  "information" undersection 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005 and also FAA has replied in detail\n  to the applicant.4. Further, it is submitted that all the Office Memorandum/Notification/Circulars\n  regarding grant of Environment Clearance or Terms of Reference applicable under\n  the provisions of Environment Impact Assessment Notifications, 2006 are available\n  in    Public      Domain     on     Ministry's   PARIVESH    Portal    i.e.    at\n  haps://parivesh.nic.in/Notifications.aspx?id=EC.35. However, in spirit ofRTI Act, 2005the available information in form of Ministry's\n  OM dated 30th September, 2009 is enclosed (Annexure III)...."To a query from the Commission, the Appellant denied the receipt of the averred\nwritten submission and in response , the CPIO at the behest of the Commission\nagreed to share a copy of the same with the Appellant through email at[email protected].Decision:The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record does not find any scope\nof action in the matter with respect to the information sought for as well as the\nreply of the CPIO provided thereon; as the queries raised by the Appellant are\nmore in the nature of seeking clarifications to be drawn by the CPIO.\nThe Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation ofSection 2(f)of\nthe RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is\nunwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they\nprovide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal\nprovisions under theRTI Act.In this regard, the Appellant's attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit ofSection 2(f)of RTI Act in the\nmatter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of\n2011]wherein it was held as under:"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about\ntheRTI Act.The RTI Actprovides access to all information that is available and\nexisting.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which\nrequire drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not\nrequired to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain\nand furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion'\nor `advice' in the definition of `information' insection 2(f)of the Act, only refers\nto such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public\nauthorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and\nopinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused\nwith any obligation under theRTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)\n\nSimilarly, in the matter ofKhanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors.\n[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:4"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is\nnot before him; or any information he could have obtained under law.\nUnderSection 6of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information\nwhich can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time\nbeing in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not\nhave been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this\ninformation and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to\nwhy he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."(Emphasis Supplied)\n\nAnd, in the matter ofDr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School\nEducation) vs. The Goa State Information Commission[2008 (110) Bom L R\n1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act\nconfers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined\nbySection 2(f)as follows.Section 2(f)-Information means any material in any form, including records,\ndocuments, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders,\nlogbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any\nelectronic form and information relating to any private body which can be\naccessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;\nThe definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which\nwould be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular\nthing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the\ncitizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a\njustification because the citizen makes a requisition about information.\nJustifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and\ncannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied)\n\nNonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the\nCPIO through written submission is in the spirit ofRTI Act, merits of which cannot\nbe called into question.Having observed as above, no further relief is pertinent in the matter.5However, in furtherance of hearing proceedings the CPIO is directed to share a\ncopy of his written submission dated 12.08.2022 along with enclosures free of\ncost with the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन)\n                                                                        हािन)\n                                       Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु )\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स#यािपत  ित)\n\n(C.A. Joseph)\nDy. Registrar\n011-26179548/[email protected]सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक\n दनांक /6