Ms. Urmila Bhargava vs Central Pollution Control … on 3 October, 2008

            Central Information Commission

                                             CIC/WB/A/2008/01035/AD

                                                    Dated October 3, 2008

Name of the Appellant          :Ms. Urmila Bhargava
                                M/s.IFP Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.
                                16/2C, Site-IV
                                Industrial Area
                                Sahibabad
                                Ghaziabad 201 010




Name of Public Authority       :Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB)
                                Ministry of Environment & Forests


Background

1. The Appellant filed an application under RTI Act 2005 on 10.3.2008
requesting for details of applications for renewal of registration of Used
Oil Processors by CPCB, and also compliance reports taken from Oil
Processors from Head Office and State Pollution Control Boards for the
period January 2006 to March 2008. The appellant possesses a Used
Oil Processor which has been registered with the Central Pollution
Control Board and was awaiting renewal of registration since her
application on 18.1.2008. (due for renewal on 14.2.2008). Not
satisfied with the CPIO’s reply dated 9.4.2008, the appellant filed the
first appeal on 16.4.2008 besides sending a rejoinder to CPIO on
25.4.2008 indicating the reasons for her dissatisfaction with the partial
information he furnished. She lodged an appeal with the Central
Information Commission on 9.6.2008 on not receiving any reply from
FAA.

2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard
the matter on October 3, 2008.

3. The appellant was present at the hearing

4. Shri H.K.Karforma, Senior Environmental Engineer & CPIO (I/C) and
Shri J.M.Mauskar, Chairman CPCB (former FAA) represented the
Public Authoity.

Decision

5. Both parties were present at the hearing. The respondents stated that
during the intervening period, following the appellant’s second appeal,
CPCB had not only renewed the registration of her Oil Processor, they
also made it permanent. The delay in registration, according to them,
was due to the non-adherence by the appellant to the existing norms
for application for renewal. The respondents further stated that since
State Pollution Control Boards are independent, the Centre finds it
difficult to procure the compliance reports from States.

6. The Appellant, while confirming that the renewal has been done,
expressed her frustration at the faulty procedures being followed for
renewal of registrations resulting in high volume of used oil trading by
unregistered persons who use this used oil for adulteration of new
petroleum products.

7. The Commission holds that with the permanent renewal of registration
of the appellant’s Used Oil Processor, her request for details of other
applications for renewal is now redundant. As redressal of grievances
lies beyond the scope of functions of the Commission, the appellant is
advised to approach an appropriate grievance redressal forum in
connection with her complaint about faulty registration procedures in
CPCB. With regard to compliance reports, the Commission directs the
CPCB to provide those reports prepared at the Headquarters, free of
cost, to the appellant within a period of 15 days of receiving this order.

8. The appeal is thus disposed off.

(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer

Cc:

1. Smt.Urmila Bhargava, M/s.IFP Petro Products(P) Ltd., 16/2C, Site-IV,
Industrial Area, Sahibabad 201010, Ghaziabad, UP

2. The Public Information Officer, Central Pollution Control Board,
Ministry of Environment & Forests, Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun
Nagar, Delhi 110 032

3. The Appellate Authority, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of
Environment & Forests, Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi 110
032

4. Officer incharge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC