CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002056/5168
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002056
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Praveen Narang
C-68, Dayanand Colony,
Lajpat Nagar - IV,
New Delhi - 110024.
Respondent : Mr. Prabhat Tyagi
Public Information Officer &
Dy. Conservator of Forest, South,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o the Dy. Conservator of Forests, South,
Near Karni Singh Shooting Range,
Tughlakabad, Delhi - 110044.
RTI application filed on : 11/11/2008
PIO replied : 05/12/2008
First appeal filed on : 07/01/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 23/06/2009
Second Appeal received on : 25/08/2009
Information Sought:
The Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 11/11/2008 had sought following information:
i) The loose papers/sheets showing the calculation of the compounding amount as per
the girth and variety of Tree with the details of notification, circular, order, gazette
number and the name and the designation of the authority who had issued them.
ii) Reason for not asking security deposit in the Appellant’s compliant case involving
MCD, Central Zone officials for their offence on 14/06/2007 at Plot No. C-69,
Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar – IV, New Delhi – 110024.
iii) Typewritten details of sum of Rs.1650/-, for which offence dated 14/06/2007 had
been compounded, showing calculation of a) Value, b) Sals Tax, c) Compensation, d)
Transportation Cost & e) Total sum of all these items.
iv) Typewritten details of sum of Rs.575/-, for which offence dated 12/03/2008 had been
compounded, showing calculation of a) Value, b) Sals Tax, c) Compensation, d)
Transportation Cost & e) Total sum of all these items. Reason for not asking security
deposit for compensatory plantation.
v) Reason for causing loss to Govt. Exchequer (Sales-Tax Deptt) by not charging sales
tax @8% on Rs. 1650/- and other compounding fees charged from different other
offenders of Tree Act during the tenure of Mr. Prabhat Tyagi as Dy. Conservator f
Forest (South & Central Division), New Delhi.
vi) Details of lapses in charging sales Tax on the compounding fee charged during the
tenure of Mr. Prabhat Tyagi as Dy. Conservator of Forest (South) on different
offences compounded by him.
vii) Details of any provision according to which the sales tax which was not charged on
compounding amount, could be collected raised and collected.
viii) Request to pass necessary order, if the answer of above query was yes, for raising the
demand for Sales – Tax from the offenders of Tree Act for the offences compounded
by Mr. Prabhat in South Division and a copy of the same with reason for not passing
any order.
ix) Whether Mr. Prabhat would liked to convey to his seniors the mistake inadvertently
made by him while acting as Dy. Conservator of Forest (South) in not raising Sales
Tax demanded and its collection thereof.
x) Whether all offences relating to Delhi Preservation of Tree Act 1994 got reported to
the Department of Forest and Wild Life, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, for necessary action
by the public at large.
xi) Whether the reporting of offence was around 30 to 50% of the actual offences being
committed relating to trees in Delhi in urban areas.
xii) Whether any camera had been provided to Mr. Prabhat or to his sub-ordinates officers
for capturing the extent of offence and site of offence by his employer and did he get
reimbursed for the color photographs taken at the site of offence, so as to cover the
loss of tree treasure.
xiii) Whether it was mandatory or otherwise for his Forest Guard, Forest Ranger to get his
inspection report about visiting the site of offence witnessed by two independent
persons from public or from his department.
xiv) The way to define the cutting of trees without permission as to be the petty offence,
medium offence, big offence and so on.
xv) Details of offences where the offences had been carried out with the connivance or
active connivance of Departmental Heads of Govt. bodies, Regd. Business (Market)
Associations, Institutions and organization by their representative/staff officers.
xvi) Whether Mr. Prabhat made any special remarks while deciding Composition fee on
the involvement of Departmental Heads with examples.
xvii) Whether in such cases while passing the orders regarding charging of Compounding
Fee Special, extra ordinary or Highest amount upto Rs. 10, 000/- per tree under
Section – 21 of the Tree Act had been charged.
xviii) Whether penalty proceedings U/s 24 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 had
been initiated in any such case in his tenure as Dy. Conservator of Forest (South &
Central Division), New Delhi.
xix) Details of cases where compounding fee was recovered from Departmental Heads of
Govt. Bodies for their Trees offences during his tenure as Dy. Conservator of Forest
(South), Delhi – 110044.
xx) Details of any such case where Mr. Prabhat had charged compounding fee (upto) @
Rs.10000/- per tree as per section 21 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994
with details of amount se recovered and the name, address & designation of such
defaulters.
xxi) Whether the Compounding order of Rs. 1650/- w.r.t. offence dated 14/06/2007 done
by MCD Central Zone officials, was rectifiable.
xxii) Whether the Compounding order of Rs. 575/- w.r.t. offence involving Mr. Jatinder
Kumar Jain, Executive Member, Community Centre Market Welfare Association
(Regd.), was rectifiable.
xxiii) Details of the cases where the compounding had been recovered @ Rs.2000/- per
tree, Rs.3000/- per tree, Rs.4000/- per tree, Rs.5000/- , Rs.6000/-, Rs.7000/-,
Rs.8000/- and Rs.9000/- per tree during his tenure as Dy. Conservator of Forest
(South), Delhi – 110044 during the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-
08.
xxiv) Whether Mr. Prabhat, during his tenure as Dy. Conservator of Forest (South), ever
launched prosecution proceeding U/s 24 of the Delhi Trees Act, 1994. And the details
of offenders, tree involved, the name and designation of the Court in whose
jurisdiction such cases were pending for necessary conviction and awarding of
prosecution upto one year.
xxv) Details of sales tax raised, collected and deposited in Govt. treasury by Mr. Prabhat
while collecting compounding fee from offenders of Tree Act during the financial
year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-2007 & 2007-08 with certified copy of the same.
The Appellant asked following queries vide his RTI Applications:
RTI Application date Details of Compounding Fee of following amounts
during its related financial year from different offender
of Tree Act
11/11/2008 Rs.93,800/- Financial Year 2007-08.
Same Rs.41,225/- Financial year 2006-07.
Same Rs.2,92,945/- Financial year 2005-06.
Same Rs.2,99,325/- Financial year 2004-05.
in given proforma which included Date/Month of offence, Place of offence, Name and Address
of the offender, Number of trees uprooted (Illegally), Full name and address of the complainant,
Compounding Fee charged and Sales Tax (in rupees). He also asked the reason that why no
offence was found to have been made out inder Delhi Preservation Tree Act, 1994 in number of
cases and what efforts had been made in tracing the offender in 3 cases and the reasons for which
13 cases were still pending.
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO replied in its reply to query no. 1, 3, 4, 19, 23, and 25 said that the information had been
provided in the form of photocopy and he had been allowed to peruse all the available record. In
reply of query no. 2 he said that the security deposit was realize to ensure plantation of saplings.
In the case under question, MCD had already taken compensatory plantation and therefore,
security deposit was not insisted. To the answer of query no. 5 he said that the question did not
seek specific information and was coined in unparliamentary language. As no sales transaction
was involved in the cases, question of deducting sales tax did not arise. The reply of query no. 12
was yes and 13 was no. And to the reply of query no. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21,
22 and 24 it said that the information sought was not available on record of the office.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA in its order directed the CPIO to provide the case wise details of composition fee
realized from the offenders in each of the cases, for the period in respect of which information
had been sought by the Appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received from the PIO after the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Praveen Narang;
Respondent : Mr. Prabhat Tyagi, Public Information Officer & Dy. Conservator of Forest, South;
The Appellant has been given the amount of compounding funds charged from different people
during the years 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08. The PIO is directed to provide information about
number of trees involved in respect of each of the offence. The appellant complaints that the
FAA Mr. J.K.Dadoo does not hear the appeals during the times stipulated under the RTI Act.
The FAA is warned to ensure that he does his duty as mandated in the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information as directed above to the Appellant before 30 October 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)