Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/000137
Dated March 12, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr. Praveen Kumar
Name of the Public Authority : Central Empowered Committee
Background
1. The Applicant Mr. Praveen Kumar filed an RTI request on 14.10.2008 with the
CPIO, Central Empowered Committee [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CEC’],
constituted under the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He
requested for various information about the violation of the Wildlife Preservation
Act, 1972; Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Supreme Court orders; action taken
against violations, certified copies of the Statute/Act which empower the CEC to
exempt offenders who had admittedly violated the provisions of the Wildlife
Preservation Act, 1972 as well as the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and those
who had expressly infringed the Supreme Court orders on various occasions,
despite clear observation by the CEC itself in its order dated 10.07.2008. While
raising these queries about the order dated 10.07.2008, the Appellant has
categorically contended that according to the basic principle of criminal law a
person is liable for the punishment prevailing at the time of commission of the
offence giving examples of cases still being tried under POTA & TADA. It has
been clearly stated in the RTI request that at the time of the violations, the
affected area was part of the notified Wildlife Sanctuary and reserved forest area
wherein felling of large of trees and merger of the area took place without the
permission of the Supreme Court. The Applicant also sought information about
the number of cases reported against IFS officers involved in violation of the
aforesaid Acts and Supreme Court orders and number of cases in which action
was recommended/taken against such errant officers by the CEC. The Applicant
in his RTI request has inter alia raised further queries about the nature and
basis of the deposit of Rs. 1 crore made by Irrigation Department as per CEC’s
order dated 10.07.2008 in IA No. 1046/2007, as also about the next date of
hearing in the relevant IA No. 2191-93/08 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court after
27.08.2008 etc.
2. The Applicant filed an Appeal dated 26.12.2008 with the Central Information
Commission on not receiving any reply from the CPIO. While referring to his RTI
request, the Applicant, in his Appeal before the Commission, alleged that the
CEC was established by a notification of the Central Government, in view of the
orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and is being totally financed by the Central
Government and hence it is a Public Authority as defined under Section 2(h) of
the RTI Act 2005. However, despite being a Public Authority as defined in the
RTI Act 2005, the CEC has not appointed any CPIO or First Appellate Authority
as is mandatory for every Public Authority and has not complied with Sections
4(1) (b) (xvi) and 5(1) of the RTI Act 2005. The Appellant in his appeal made a
three fold prayer before the Commission seeking information from the CEC as
per his RTI request, seeking direction of the Commission for the appointment of
CPIO and also appropriate action under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 against
persons responsible for denial of information.
3. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing for March 12, 2009 and a hearing notice dated 26.02.2009 was
accordingly sent to the parties. The CEC sent its reply to the Commission dated
12.03.2009 rebutting the Appellant’s contention about the establishment of the
CEC and funding thereof by the Central Government. The Respondent, CEC has
placed reliance on the orders dated 14.12.2007 and 21.02.2008 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the CEC was established. The Respondents
have averred that despite directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no funds
have been provided by the Central Government [precisely the Ministry of
Environment and Forests], as incorrectly maintained by the Complainant, and
that the expenses of the CEC are met out of funds placed at its disposal by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, the CEC has placed on record a copy of its
order dated 10.7.2008 whereby the Respondent had decided the issue with
respect to the violations of the various Acts and the orders of the Apex Court.
4. No one represented the Public Authority.
5. The Applicant vide his letter dated 06.03.2009 sought exemption from personal
presence on the date of hearing on account of his unavailability in town.
6. The submissions of the Respondent vide their communication dated 12.03.2009
record the contention that the RTI application was primarily filed for preventing
the construction of the Hansi – Butana Canal through the Saraswati Wildlife
Sanctuary land and to recommend to the Hon’ble Supreme Court for action
against the guilty officials. According to the CEC, after examination of the
relevant information, it was decided not to recommend to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court for initiating action against the concerned officers of the State of Haryana
and for which the reasoned order was passed on 10.07.2008. Perusal of the
order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the CEC reveals that in the paragraph 7 of
the said order, while the Respondent has observed the acts of violation of the
provision of Forest Conservation Act, Wildlife Protection Act as also complete
disregard of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the CEC has condoned all
the acts of infringement of law and contempt of the Apex Court on the basis of
subsequent approvals and with a warning not to repeat such violations.
7. The Respondent has further submitted that it is not an Authority notified by the
Central Government, and stated that the expenses of the CEC are met out of
funds placed at its disposal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Hearing
8. Issue
i) Whether the CEC is a Public Authority as defined in the RTI Act 2005,
and liable to comply with the mandatory provisions of the RTI Act 2005?
And
ii) Whether the information as sought by the Appellant are liable to be
furnished by the Respondent in the capacity of a Public Auhtority?
Decision
9. In the light of the foregoing submissions of both the parties, it would be
pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines
a “Public Authority” as under:
“2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-
government established or constituted–
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government,
and includes any–
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed ,directly or
indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;”
10. The term “Public Authority” as defined u/s 2(h) of the Right to Information Act,
2005 therefore, means any authority or body or Institution established or
constituted by or under the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India is an
Institution created under provisions of the Article 124 of the Constitution and is,
therefore, a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to
Information Act. Hence, any body or authority created under orders of a Public
Authority; in this case, the Supreme Court of India, is also a Public Authority.
The CEC being constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated
09.05.2002 and 09.09.2002 and formally constituted vide a 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 is by all means a Public
Authority as defined under provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The foregoing
discussion thus decides the First Issue and it is evident that the CEC being a
body created and accountable to a Public Authority as also being wholly financed
by a Public Authority, owes its origin and existence to a Public Authority viz the
Supreme Court of India and is beyond doubt in itself also a Public Authority.
11. The Respondent in the communication dated 12.03.2009 has nowhere
contradicted the CEC’s entity as a Public Authority. Hence there can be no
explanation nor exemption for a Public Authority in denying any information
sought by any citizen invoking the RTI Act 2005. With respect to the
Respondent’s contention justifying the non appointment of CPIO on the ground
that the information with the CEC is available in public domain and is provided
even without RTI application, while such furnishing of information by the
Respondent is appreciated, the Commission is of the opinion that the CEC, in the
capacity of a Public Authority, not being above law, is bound by the law of the
land like all other Public Authorities. Accordingly, the Respondent in the capacity
of a Public Authority must comply with the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. Hence
the Respondent is directed to 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.
12. It is evident from the RTI request itself that the Appellant is in possession of the
order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the CEC and all the information sought by
him are based on the said order itself. The information as sought by the
Appellant are clearly not a part of the orders/Reports/Advise provided by the
Respondent on a regular basis. At the same time, the information sought by the
Appellant are quite relevant since the same relates to violation of Acts and also
orders of the Apex Court. Hence, the Commission in its considered opinion
directs that the Respondent shall furnish all available information as sought by
the Appellant in his RTI request detailing all the points within a month of receipt
of this order. Information may be denied by the Respondent only by seeking
appropriate exemption under the relevant provision of RTI Act, 2005.
13. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Sh. Praveen Kumar
Room No. 255 Old,
Brahmaputra Hostel, JNU
New Delhi
2. The Central Empowered Committee
Constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
2nd Floor, Chanakya Bhawan, Chanakya Puri,
New Delhi – 110 021.
3. Officer in charge, NIC 4 Press E Group, CIC