Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 5 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOENF/C/2023/614200
Naresh Kadyan ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor
Bagh, New Delhi - 110003 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.07.2024
Date of Decision : 04.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.01.2023
CPIO replied on : 30.01.2023
First appeal filed on : 01.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"Supply all communications, complaints received related to elephant defined with the term cattle, with all relevant file notings and efforts and credits confers to the whistle blowers Abhishek Kadyan with Sukanya Kadyan Berwal and their role, tireless services, with present status, related to:Page 1 of 5
1. Indian Forest Act, Cattle Trespass Act, IPC 429, explain the term cattle, under these legislations.
2. Complete agenda, related to item No. 6.
3. Confirmation and minutes, related to item No. 6.
4. Copies of action taken with replies and compliance, related to item No. 6, after the decision.
5. All copies of WCCB communications, related to elephant defined term cattle and orders passed by CIC with replied submitted by PE.
6. Following legislation, describing Elephant word, term as cattle, in their definition, which is wrong, as per decision, of the 17th Project Elephant Steering Committee Meeting, based on the whistle blowers complaint. A). Indian Forest Act B). Cattle Trespass Act C). IPC 429 D). Haryana Police Act E). Punjab Police Act F). Chandigarh Police Act G). Police Act, 1861 applicable in UP H). Gujarat Police Act
1). Bombay Police Act J). Delhi Police Act
7. Copies with agenda and minutes with action taken reports, related to: A). Haryana Panchyati Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2015. B). Haryana Cattle Fairs (Amendment) Act, 2013. C). Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulations) Amendment Act, 2014."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 30.01.2023 stating as under:
"The copy of the complaint received by PE Division alongwith the action taken is enclosed.
1. This office is governed by the provisions of WLPA, 1972. As per the act, the elephant is placed as Schedule I species, which provide the highest protection to the animal.Page 2 of 5
2.&3. The details of the agenda alongwith the minutes of the meetings is enclosed.
4. The matter regarding replacement of word cattle from various acts was discussed during the 17th Steering Committee of Project Elephant. Copy of the proceeding is enclosed. In compliance of the decision taken on the Agenda 6 the Project Elephant Division has initiated the needful action in the matter.
5. The information sought pertains of WCCB. Hence, this RTI is forwarded to CPIO, WCCB with a request to provide necessary information in respect of point 5 as pertaining to them directly to you.
6. This office is governed by the provisions of WLPA, 1972. As per the act, the elephant is placed as Schedule I species, which provide the highest protection to the animal.
7. Information not available in PE Division."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.02.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Scientist 'C' and CPIO, attended the hearing in person.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance.
The Respondent submitted that an adequate and pointwise reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 30.01.2023.Page 3 of 5
A written submission has been received from the Complainant vide letter dated nil and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"Prayers:
1. RTI Act, 2002 never been appreciated, concealed information as desired. 2.
Complaint has been lodged, CPIO supplied some documents directly to the CIC, without endorsing me, whereas CIC is a duty bound, to protect the interest of all legal mechanism, including article 51A of Indian Constitution, against payment from public funds, being public servant."
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause by the CPIO. The Commission observes that an adequate reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 30.01.2023, hence, no mala fide is established against the Respondent.
The Commission would like to counsel the Complainant that in a Complaint case filed u/s 18 of the Act, no further direction for disclosure of information can be made as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011, wherein is was held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express Page 4 of 5 provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Complaint.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Sh. Naresh Kadyan C-38, Rose Apartment, Prashant Vihar, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)