CIC/SA/A/2015/001222. Case: Anil Sood Vs PIO, M/o Environment & Forests. Central Information Commission

Case Number:CIC/SA/A/2015/001222
Party Name:Anil Sood Vs PIO, M/o Environment & Forests
Counsel:For Appellant: Party-in-Person and Leeza Grover, Advocate and For Respondents: V.P. Singh
Judges:M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner
Issue:Right to Information
Judgement Date:December 01, 2015
Court:Central Information Commission
 
FREE EXCERPT

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 01-Dec-2015
Party Details Anil Sood Vs PIO, M/o Environment & Forests
Case No CIC/SA/A/2015/001222
Judges M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner
Advocates For Appellant: Party-in-Person and Leeza Grover, Advocate and For Respondents: V.P. Singh
Acts Right to Information

Decision:

M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner

1. Appellant is present with Ms. Leeza Grover, Advocate. Mr. V.P. Singh, represents Public authority.

FACTS:

2. Appellant by his RTI application had sought for certified copy of the notice for public hearing issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest for the proposal of file No. 21-57/2015-IA.III and for proposal of file No. 21-61/2015-IA-III, Copy of the environmental clearance granted to above projects by the MoEF, Copy of each of the presentation submitted by both the Project proponents before the 147th Expert Appraisal Committee as held on 23rd-24th April, 2015 and photograph of the projects sites as provided by the project proponents.

3. Having received no information within the prescribed period, appellant filed first appeal on 03.07.2015.

4. PIO, thereafter, replied on 14.06.2015 providing a detailed reply.

5. FAA by his letter dated 05.08.2015 requested the CPIO to provide the available information within 10 days. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant has approached the Commission.

Proceedings Before the Commission:

6. Appellant claimed that his RTI application dated 23.05.2015 was received by CPIO on 26.05.2015. But he had not received any reply from the CPIO till 17.07.2015. He also complained that the reply was back-dated on 14.06.2015 and it was despatched on 15.07.2015. CPIO on other hand stated that the RTI application of the appellant was received in Ministry on 10.06.2015 and its reply was uploaded in the RTI portal on 14.06.2015, further the same was sent to CR section, from where it was despatched on 15.07.2015.

7. The appellant states that his RTI application was concerning a issue regarding approximate cost of project adjacent to Aravali Bio Diversity Park, New Delhi. He also referred to the general condition attached to EIA Notification 2006:--

"Any project or activity specified in Category 'B' will be treated as Category 'A', if located in whole or in part within 10 km from the boundary of: (i) Protected Areas notified under the Wild Life 9 Protection)...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL