Central Empowered Committee: Documents pertaining to particular application filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records - CIC: Appropriate response has been provided; Explain the absence during hearing

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.06.2022 seeking information on the following points:-

“(1)Copy of Complete set of Application No. 986-A & 986 B with all attachments and annexures there with filed by Seth Anandji Kalyanji Trust before CEC. With all attachments

(2) copies of IA No. 2670 & 2671 in WP no.202 of 1995 and Comments of CEC submitted before SC With all attachments.”

The CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 24.06.2022 replied as under:-

“……….The following CEC reports on the subject are enclosed herewith. Other documents requested by you are not available in our record.

i) CEC's Report dated 12th August 2009 in Application No. 986-A filed before it by Sheth Anandji Kalyan Ji Trust seeking the deletion of the entire area of Ranakpur Jain Temples Complex situated in Sadri Village, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan from the Reserved Forest/Sanctuary.

ii) CEC's Report dated 12th August 2009 in Application No. 986-B filed before it by Sheth Anandji Kalyan Ji Trust seeking the deletion of the entire area of Shri Muchhala Mahavir Complex situated in Village Ghanerav, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan from the Reserved Forest /Sanctuary.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.07.2022. The FAA vide order dated 24.08.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: None

Respondent: None Neither party is present for the hearing.

Decision

Since neither party is present for hearing, decision is based on records available. It is noted that the CEC reports dated 12.08.2009 with respect to application Nos. 986-A and 986-B had been provided by the Respondent PIO. The FAA in his detailed order dated 24.08.2022 discussed as under:

10. At this juncture it is relevant to point out that the CEC had submitted two Reports to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Both these Reports are dated 12th August, 2009 one Report being in Application No. 986-4 (numbered in Supreme Court as IA No. 2670) and the other Report being in Application No. 986-8 (numbered in Supreme Court as IA No. 2671). Both the Reports have been finalized by the CEC after carefully going through the Application No. 986-A and Application No. 986-8. The two Reports of CEC highlights the main issues raised in the two Applications 986-4 and 986-8 and also the prayer of the Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust. It is to be noted that the Report of CEC on Application No. 986-A has been numbered as IA No. 2670 in the Supreme Court. Similarly the Report of CEC on Application No. 986-8 has been numbered as IA No. 2671 in the Supreme Court. On 30.10.2009 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed two separate orders one in IA No. 2670 (Application No. 986-A) and the other order in IA No. 2671 (Application No. 986-8). The Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the above two orders on 30.10.2009 has considered the prayers made in the two Applications and has taken into consideration the comments/observations and recommendations of the CEC in its two Reports dated 12th August, 2009.

11. It may be stated here that the Applicant while seeking particulars of information did also seek for comments of CEC submitted before Hon'ble Supreme Court and copies of the IA No. 2670 and IA No. 2671. These comments/ observations are available in the two Reports of CEC submitted to Hon'ble Supreme Court and which have also been made available to the Applicant. It is therefore not correct for the Applicant to state that the PIO by furnishing two Reports of CEC has furnished information to the Applicant that has never been demanded.

12. In the above context it is imperative to state here that the CEC, a Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is not a permanent committee. This committee is housed in limited accommodation with minimum essential supporting staff. Keeping in view the serious space constraint and limited staff the hundreds and hundreds of Applications received over the last many years necessarily had to be disposed of/weeded at the earliest after the final orders/ judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matters attained finality. In the instant case in the Application No. 986-A and Application No. 986-8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed final orders on 30.10.2009 that is about thirteen years ago. This is a very long time from the perspective of a committee like CEC which is also not a permanent Committee. Accordingly the Application No. 986-A and Application No. 986-8 have been disposed of and are no longer there in the records of the CEC. The CEC only retains in its records the Reports submitted by the CEC to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Copies of Application No. 986-A and Application No. 986-8 sought by the Applicant Mr. Bhupesh Rathod are presently neither available with the CEC nor are such Applications required to be maintained. At this belated juncture much as CEC would have liked to help the Applicant to access the documents asked for the CEC is not in a position to do so.

13. Keeping in view the discussions above, the information furnished to the Applicant by the Member Secretary, Central Empowered Committee (Public Information Officer) vide letters dated 24.06.2022 and 04.07.2022 stating that the documents pertaining to Application No. 986-A and 986-8 filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records of CEC is correct.

Thus perusal of records of the case clearly indicates that appropriate response in consonance with the provisions of the Act had been duly provided to the Appellant. However, the Respondent has failed to appear during the hearing without any justifiable explanation, thereby leading to the proceedings being vitiated in clear violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, it is hereby directed that the PIO, CEC shall submit a suitable explanation for the absence during hearing and as to why no penal action should be initiated for the violation of the express provisions of the RTI Act. The explanation must reach the Commission within four weeks of receipt of this order, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated suo motu, in terms of law. It is made clear that non-compliance of the above directions shall attract necessary action, as per law.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Bhupesh Rathod v. Central Empowered Committee (constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India), CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/126024; Date of Decision: 02.09.2024