PIO: Some matter in relation to the Expert Committee report is sub-judice before a court of law - Appellant: If the report is sub-judice, this means some third person has the report & it is public; Hence, it cannot be denied - CIC accepted the submission
17 Mar, 2020Information Sought:
The appellant has sought a copy of the report of the expert committee constituted under Dr. Anupam Verma, Former Professor, Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI), to carry out technical review of 66 pesticides.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that irrelevant information was provided to him as he was not able to locate the report of the Expert Committee constituted under Dr. Anupam Verma on the website referred to by the CPIO in her reply dated 01.06.2018. The CPIO submitted that whatever information was available with them in connection with the Expert Committee constituted under Dr. Anupam Verma that was uploaded on their website and hence an appropriate reply was given to the appellant.
On a query by the Commission whether a copy of the report of the Expert Committee was also uploaded on their website, the CPIO submitted that no such report was available with them and hence it was not uploaded.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO was irrelevant as a copy of the Expert Committee constituted under Dr. Anupam Verma was not provided to the appellant which was sought by him in his RTI application although the reply appeared to be directing him to the website where the report was to be available. During the hearing the CPIO, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage submitted that the report was not under their custody as it is available with the Ministry and also submitted that some matter in relation to the report is sub-judice before a court of law. Even if this submission of the CPIO is accepted, the CPIO could have sought assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the holder of the information which was not done. At this point, the appellant raised an objection and submitted that if this report is sub-judice before a court of law, this means some third person has the report and it has gone public and hence it cannot be denied to him. The Commission accepts the submission of the appellant and directs the CPIO, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare to provide the information in the form of a copy of the report as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
It was also noted that the original RTI application was filed in the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare only and as per the submissions of the CPIO, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage, the desired information is available with the Department. The Commission is unable to understand as to why the RTI application was forwarded to the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage when the custodian of the desired information was the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare where the RTI was filed.
The Commission expresses its extreme displeasure at the conduct of both the CPIOs for showing such laxity in handling the RTI application. Had they been more careful, there would have been no need to come in second appeal.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the CPIO, C R Ajayan, Under Secretary & CPIO, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare is directed to provide complete information in the form of a copy of the report (subject to the exemption clauses , if applicable) to the appellant within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. Both the CPIOs are also warned to remain extremely careful in future while handling RTI applications and to provide relevant information to the appellant after proper scrutiny of the RTI application. In case such a lapse is repeated in future, more stringent action may be initiated against them.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Siddharth Joshi v. Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage, Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee in Decision no.: -CIC/DPPQS/A/2018/626961/02518, Date of Decision : 02/01/2020