Central Information Commission

                                                   CIC/WB/A/2007/00585/AD

                                                              Dated October 3, 2008

Name of the Appellant              :        Mr. Nilesh Kumar
                                            1-17, Old Double Storey
                                            Lajpat Nagar - IV
                                            New Delhi 110 024


Name of the Public Authority :              Ministry of Environment & Forests


Background

1. The RTI application was filed on 5.1.07 requesting for information against 28 points with respect to the Charter of Corporate Responsibility for Environmental Protection(CREP). The CPIO's reply was sent on 29.1.07 stating that under the RTI Act information only in the form of documents as defined under Section 2(f) can be provided and that once documents are specified, photocopies can be sent after deposit of Rs. 2/- per page. The CPIO enclosed details of no. of pages of the Charter released in March 2003 and the no. of pages contained in the Pollution Control Act Rules and Notifications issued thereunder by Central Pollution Control Board , January 2006. The first appeal was filed by the appellant on 13.2.07 expressing his dissatisfaction with the reply and indicating questions not answered/partially answered. The FAA in his Order dated 29.3.07 stated that 24 items of the appellant's request revolved around CREP guidelines and the fall-out of these guidelines. The remaining queries revolved around issues in other areas and not to CREP. He also stated that the appellant was furnished with various documents and publications on his depositing the prescribed photocopying charges. The FAA added that collecting the information and processing it would amount to disproportionate diversion of public resources. The second appeal was filed before the CIC on 27.4.07.

2. The Bench of Mrs.Annapurana Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter on October 3, 20087

3. The Appellant was present at the hearing along with Advocate Mr. Vivek Sibal who represented the appellant.

4. Mr. Rajneesh Dubey, Appellant Authority represented the Public Authoity Decision

5. The FAA stated that there is no law that makes it mandatory for industries to comply with CREP Guidelines. Some industries are following them because they chose to do so.

6. The Commission noted that the Appellant requested for information against 28 points of which 19 revolved around mandatory compliance with CREP Guidelines by industries. The Commission holds that, in the light of the FAA's statement that it is not mandatory for industries to follow the CREP Guidelines, all 19 points have become redundant.

7. The Commission directs the CPIO to allow the appellant to have access to books, files, documents, minutes of meetings, records etc. for information sought for against points 1, 2, 6, 11, 22 and 23 of the RTI request.

8. CPIO also to ensure that the appellant is provided with information sought against points 12, 14, and 26 from CPCB, if it is available at the CPCB office.

9. With regard to the points 19 and 27 in the RTI request, the Commission holds that the Public Authority is not bound to provide answers to queries with 'what' as the prefix, raised by the Appellant since under the RTI Act, the appellant can seek information that exists in material form as given in the definition of 'Information' in Sections 2(f), (i) (j) of the Act and not seek opinions or assessments.

10. The appeal stands closed.

(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:

1. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, 1-17, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar - IV, New Delhi 110 024

2. The Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.

3. The Appellate Authority, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.

4. Officer incharge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC