Central Information Commission
                                                              CIC/AD/A/09/00326

                                                               Dated April 21, 2009

Name of the Applicant                     :   Mr.J.B.Sharma

Name of the Public Authority              :   Indian Council of Medical Research


Background

1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.29.12.08 with the CPIO, ICMR. He requested for information against 12 points with regard to DPC meeting held on 25.5.1988 and 5.8.1988 for promotion to the post of Administrative officer and in OA No.285 of 2006 in the matter of supersession in the grade of AO and SAO by Shri Prem singh. The CPIO replied on 16.1.09 directing the Applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.10/- by DD in favour of DG, ICMR or deposit in cash. The applicant paid the amount but received no information. He then filed an appeal dt.30.1.09 with the Appellate Authority. On not receiving any reply, he filed a second appeal dt.2.3.09 before CIC.

2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for April 21, 2009.

3. Mr. C.S. Gupta, AO & PIO and Mr. H.L. Arora, S.A>O & Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority.

4. The Applicant was present during the hearing.

Decision

5. The Appellant submitted that in para 4.10 of his original appeal No.285 of 2006 filed before the CAT on 30.1.06, the Respondent rejected the plea made by him in his representation dated 8.12.95 without even touching the main issue of supersession by his junior Shri Prem Singh and that despite not doing so, in para 4.10 of the Respondent,s reply, filed on 24.4.06 it is stated that the allegation of supersession by Shri Prem Singh was also considered and duly intimated to the Applicant. According to the Appellant that no such information regarding supersession by Shri Prem Singh has been intimated to him. Accordingly in his second appeal he requested for the copy of the decision in the matter of supersession.

The Respondent submitted that since this case is related to a legal issue and since a number of issues are co-related in the case of the Appellant and also since this case is on-going since 1997, the Public Authority will review all available information in this connection and provide the same to the Appellant. The CPIO is accordingly directed to provide the information which has been admitted before the CAT by the Respondent, within 20 days of issue of this Order.

6. The appeal is disposed off.

(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(G.Subramanian) Asst. Registrar Cc:

1. Mr.J.B.Sharma Maya Bhawan H-961, Palam Extension Sector-7, Dwarka New Delhi 110 077

2. The CPIO Indian Council of Medical Research Ansari Nagar New Delhi 110 029

3. The Appellate Authority Indian Council of Medical Research Ansari Nagar New Delhi 110 029

4. Officer in charge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/09/00328 Dated April 21, 2009 Name of the Applicant : Mr.Rajesh Debroy Name of the Public Authority : Central Pollution Control Board Background

1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.10.10.08 with the CPIO, CPCB. He stated that CPCB has been constituted under an Act of the Parliament. The general public does not know what type or category of organization it actually is? CPCB publications, MoEF's Annual reports and other documents identify CPCB differently. Some say it is a grant in aid organization while others report it to be an autonomous institute, S&T body etc. He wanted to know the type of organization CPCB officially falls under with concrete documentary evidence to this effect. He also wanted to know whether the main roles, duties and current activities of CPCB are in line with that of the type of organization CPCB belong to.

The CPIO replied on 3.11.08 enclosing the extract of provision of Section 3, of the Water Act, 1974 which deals with constitution of the Central Board, the section 16 of the Water Act, 1974 and Section 16 of the Air Act, 1981 which deals with the powers and functions of Central Board. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.2.12.08 with the Appellate Authority stating that from the reply furnished by CPIO, it can be seen that CPCB passing the criteria and tests of different types of organization thereby indicating that it can possibly exist as any of the following forms of organization - Body Corporate, State Authority, Statutory Body, Government Agency, Grant in Aid organization, Autonomous Body and others. He particularly wants to know what type of organization CPCB is. The Appellate Authority replied on 2.1.09 stating that once the full information is supplied by the CPIO, it is upto the Applicant to understand the meaning. Aggrieved with this reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.24.2.09 before CIC.

2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for April 21, 2009.

3. Mr. S.N. Gundli, Law Officer & CPIO, Mr. J.S. Kamyotra, Member Secretary & Appellate Authority and Mr. Shriance Jain, Asstt. Secretary represented the Public Authority.

4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

5. The Respondent submitted that all the information has been provided to the Appellant. He stated that the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 clearly gives the constitution of the Central Pollution Control Board. This has been intimated to the Appellant who also happens to be working for CPCB. The Respondent further stated that the sub section 3 of Chapter II of the Act provides the exact statutory status of the Body. The CPCB is a Research Organisation and an autonomous body receiving 100 % grant-in-aid from the Government. The main functions of the Board are categorized under Section 16 of both the Water and Air Acts. According to the Respondent no other roles and duties exist as far as the CPCB is concerned, outside those given in the Act. They further added that CPCB publishes Annual plans which spell out activities to be undertaken by the Board on an year to year basis. The CPCB implements activities broadly in the areas of (i) development of standards and their compliance, (ii)monitoring of ambient environment of water, air and noise, (iii) technological development for abetment/control of pollution, (iv) issues related to biomedical/plastic/hazardous/municipal waste

(v) material and research and development activities etc. It is the Respondent's contention that the Appellant is aware of all these activities since he is an Environmental Engineer working for CPCB.

6. The Commission noted that in his appeal the Appellant has not asked for any information but has requested for initiating action against the CPIO for providing misleading and confusing replies and holds that the Appellant's appeal for imposition of penalty on the CPIO does not have any merit as information was provided by the CPIO well within the mandatory period.

7. After hearing the submission of the Respondent and on perusal of the information provided, it was found that all available information has been provided to the Appellant and since no further information has been sought in the 2nd appeal, the appeal is rejected.

(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(G.Subramanian) Asst. Registrar Cc:

1. Mr.Rajesh Debroy Central Pollution Control Board, UPCD Parivesh Bhawan, Room No.304 East Arjun Nagar, Delhi 110 032

2. Mr.S.L.Gundli The CPIO & Law Officer Central Pollution Control Board, 1st Floor Parivesh Bhawan, Room No.304 East Arjun Nagar, Delhi 110 032

3. Mr.J.S.Kamyoutra The Appellate Authority & Member Secretary Central Pollution Control Board, 2nd Floor Parivesh Bhawan, Room No.304 East Arjun Nagar, Delhi 110 032

4. Officer in charge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC