Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/000741
Dated November 20, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri K.Balasunder
Name of the Public Authority : M/o Environment & Forests
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.18.2.09 with CPIO , Dr.A.Senthil Vel, Director,
MoEF requesting for a copy of all 15 documents mentioned in the notesheet sent by
Mr. Vel and placed on file for giving Environmental Clearance for construction of
revetment for setting up of a Marine Terminal in Chitrapettai Village, Cuddalore
District, Tamil Nadu. by Dr.Senthil Vel vide his letter dt.Nil, January, 2009. He also
requested to be intimated about the fees to be paid for obtaining the copies. On not
receiving any reply, he sent two reminders vide letters dt.13.3.09 and 10.4.09. On
still not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.6.6.09 with the Appellate
Authority reiterating his request for the information. Being aggrieved with the
constant denial of information, even from the Appellate Authority, the Applicant filed a
complaint dt.29.7.09 before CIC stating that the information sought are the basic
material information which are relied by the state and central authorities for
preventing pollution and illegal activities, whilst granting clearance and
permission/approvals for any activities by the industries and others falling within the
state. He added that MoEF as the statutory body is answerable to citizens and these
information will enable him (the Applicant) to understand as to whether due care and
compliance have been ensued while granting environmental clearance. The
Commission vide its order dt.30.9.09 directed the Respondents to provide the
information to the Applicant by 30.10.09 and the PIO to showcause why a penalty of
Rs.250/- per day should not be imposed on him for not providing the information
within the stipulated period as given in the RTI Act. The explanation to be sent to the
Commission by 5.11.09.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for November 20, 2009.
3. Dr.A.Senthil Vel, Addl. Director and Shri E.Thirunavukkarasu, Dy. Director represented
the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was represented by Shri K.S.Mahadevan, Advocate..
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the RTI application dt.18.2.09 was not received by
them. When the Commission sought further details, he stated that had the RTI fees
been deposited along with the RTI application, details of RTI application along with
payment made would have been recorded in the register in the RTI Cell. However , no
information about deposit of RTI fees was available raising doubts about the date of
dispatch of the RTI request by the Appellant as also payment of RTI fees. Mr.
Mahadevan, who represented the Appellant, as also the Respondent sought additional
time to find out whether the RTI fees was paid or not .
6. With regard to the information sought, the Respondent submitted that the list of 15
documents is kept on the top of every proposal as a form of a check list . However,
every proposal need not necessarily be accompanied by all the 15 documents. In the
instant case, the Company had only submitted 5 out of the 15 documents along with
its proposal, which was then put up to the Expert Committee for their approval. The
Expert Committee could have asked for all the remaining 10 documents or selected
documents if they wanted to. However, the Committee chose to approve the proposal
based on only the 5 documents on 29.10.05, The environmental clearance was issued
by Dr.A.Senthil Vel vide his letter dated 19.12.05.
6. The case was again heard on 25th November 2009. Shri E.Thirunavukarasu, Dy.
Director represented the Public Authority and Shri K.S.Mahadevan, Advocate
represented the Appellant.
7. The Respondent, Shri Thirunavukarasu reiterated that they had received only 5
documents along with the proposal submitted by the company and the expert
committee had also opined that no additional document is required. Mr. Mahadevan
representing the Appellant, on the other hand, vehemently contended that
environmental clearance in the instant case ought to have been given only
after taking into consideration all factors reflected in all the 15 documents
and not just 5, before giving the environmental clearance.
8. Mr. Mahadevan also added that on checking with the Applicant Mr. Balasunder, he
came to know that the RTI fees was inadvertently not paid and he offered to pay the
amount in cash to the CPIO for the information and also insisted on the information
being sent to him. During the hearing, however, a set of supporting documents
identified by the Commission including certified copies of the Minutes of Expert
Committee meeting held on 29.10.05 and the letter vide which Environmental
Clearance was issued dated 19.12.05 were handed over to the Appellant.
9. After due consideration of submissions by both parties, the Commission directs the
Appellant to provide one more set of certified copies of documents to the Appellant
besides an affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper informing about the non-availability of
the 10 documents out of the 15 sought by the Appellant and the reasons for the
same, by 25 December, 2009. The Appellant is also directed to pay the RTI Fee
within 2 days of the date of hearing and the CPIO.
10. The entire exercise should be over by 25.12.09
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri K.Balasundar
S/o Shri A.Krishnamurthy
#1/1445, Jawaharlal Nehru Street
Guruswamy Nagar Extension 5
Mugalivakkam
Chennai 600 116
2. Dr.A.Senthil Vel
Addl. Director (Scientific)
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Paryavaran Bhavan
CGO Complex
Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110 003
3. Officer incharge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC