New Delhi: The Central Information Commission has pulled up the Central Public Information Officer of the ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEFCC) for withholding information on the environmental clearance given to M/s Nalwa Steel Power Ltd project in Chhattisgarh of the O.P. Jindal group despite the first appellate authority having found as “genuine” the grievance of the appellant that “false and misleading” information had been submitted for obtaining the clearance.
CPIO unable to explain why no reply given
In his order, Central Information Commissioner Amitava Bhattacharyya stated that the appellant, Ramesh Agrawal, had filed his appeal with the CPIO of MoEFCC in February 2016 but the reply of the CPIO was “not on record”.
He also noted that not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, Agrawal had filed the first appeal in May 2017. The First Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal in June 2017. “Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission” in July 2017 stating that he had not been provided the “desired information” by the CPIO.
The CIC held that the Raja Sekhar Ratti, who was scientist-cum-CPIO, during the hearing “was unable to explain why no reply was provided to the appellant till date.”
On submission of “false and misleading information”, FAA had found grievance to be “genuine”
The Information Commissioner noted that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in his order of June 7, 2017 had held: “I have gone through the appeal no. MOENF/A/2017/00029 filed under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding submission of false and misleading information by M/s Nalwa Steel Power Ltd. for obtaining Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 for expansion/diversification of steel plant at village Taraimal, District Raigarh in Chhatisgarh.”
The FAA had further held: “I find that the grievance is genuine, hence the CPIO is directed to take immediate action on application forthwith and provide the information to the appellant free of cost within 20 days. CPIO is, therefore, advised that all RTI applications should be properly replied within prescribed 30 days.”
CIC says PIO’s lament of appellant filing many RTI appeals cannot be ground to deny information
In his order, Bhattacharyya also stated that the sole contention of the CPIO that the appellant was a “frequent RTI applicant and till date 46 RTI applications had been filed by him to the Ministry” would not absolve the CPIO from the fact that he had not provided any reply to the appellant in respect of the present RTI application which amounts to denial of information.
Besides, the CIC said Ratti who was present in person before the Commission during the hearing could not explain in any way the absence of any reply to the appellant in all this time. Bhattacharyya therefore held that this “action of the CPIO, Shri Ratti is punishable u/s 20 of the RTI Act” and recommended “disciplinary action” against him under the service rules applicable to him.
It also directed the First Appellate Authority to take the necessary action and to submit the “action taken” report on the issue with the Commission within 60 days.
Villagers had raised environmental concerns during public hearing
Incidentally, in 2014, the Nalwa Steel and Power Limited expansion plan had witnessed protests from the villagers in during the public hearing on the ground that their concerns had been ignored. A major complaint of the villagers then was that the company was utilising water without any permission and had not provided jobs to those impacted by the project. PTI had reported then that the public hearing was “a requisite for securing a green nod for expansion of capacity”.