Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/09/00036/AD
CIC/AD/A/X/09/066
Dated January 29, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Mr.Santosh Gouthi
Name of the Public Authority : M/o Environment & Forests
Background
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dt.28.6.08 with the CPIO, M/o Env. &
Forests. He requested for the photocopies of the following:
i) Was draft notification issued for issuing Notification No.371(E)
dt.17.5.02
ii) Whether two extensions were given in lieu of Sub Rule 3(3). Was
there any order issued to this effect under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 3
The CPIO replied on 11.7.08 requesting the Appellant to deposit an amount of
Rs.62/- @ Rs.2/- per page to get photocopy of the notifications. The
Appellant replied on 18.7.08 stating that he had not asked for photocopies
but only asked for the above two information. The CPIO replied on 25.7.08
stating that the Ministry is empowered under Section 6 and 25 Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 for notification of environmental standards in Gazette.
The two extensions were under the provision of the aforesaid sections. The
Appellant once again replied on 4.8.08 stating that he has not enquired about
Ministry’s power under Section 25 and reiterated his request for the above
two information. The Appellant filed a complaint dt.1.9.08 before the CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing on January 29, 2009.
3. Mr. Ram Niwas Jindal, Addl. Director and CPIO and Mr. A.N. Ahuja, Asstt.
represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. With regard to point 2, the Respondents submitted that information sought is
directly related to the interpretation of law by the CPIO, which is not
covered under the definition of information given in the RTI Act. They also
submitted that interpretation of this clause is before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in SLA No.12253 of 2005 with SLP No.12501 of 2005 M/s Jackson &
Company Vs. Union of India. With regard to the supporting background
documents sought by the Appellant in his fax dt. 29.1.09 to the Commission,
the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the relevant information after
payment of the prescribed fee as given in the RTI Act. The Commission noted
that in his fax dated 29.1.09, , the Appellant stated that reply to point no.1
has not been provided. However, from the Respondent’s letter dt. 29.10.08 it
was noted that the answer to this question was already sent to the Appellant.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Mr.Santosh Gouthi
Power Pack
4/1 SJP Road
IInd Cross
Bangalore 560 002
2. The CPIO &
The Addl. Director (S)
Ministry of Environment & Forest
Paryavaran Bhavan
CGO Complex
Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110 003
3. Officer in charge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC