Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Department Of Animal Husbandry, ... on 10 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DOAHD/C/2023/642839
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
and Fisheries
Date of Hearing : 06.06.2024
Date of Decision : 06.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 17.06.2023
PIO replied on : 12.07.2023
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 06.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"Live-Stock and Live-Stock Products Importation and Exportation Bill, 2023 prepared but Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds along with OIPA: Indian People for Animals along with Animal Welfare Party, strongly protested against this bill, on the following grounds:
1. 2(e) live-stock includes all equines (all live equine irrespective of purpose including donkey, horses, mule, assess, hinnies), bovines (all bovine animals including cattle, buffaloes, bullocks or any animals falling in the category of bovidae), caprines, ovines, swines, canines, felines, avian, laboratory animals, aquatic animals and any other animal which may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette from time to time, except those prohibited in any other act.
2(f) live-stock products include meat and meat products of all kinds including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue, organs of bovine, poultry, pig, sheep, goat egg and egg powder, milk and milk products, bovine, ovine and caprine, Page 1 of 3 embryos, ova, semen pet food products of animal origin and any other animal product produced from live-stock as notified under section 2 (e) by the Central Government in the Official Gazette from time to time.
2. Discrimination and contradictions.
3. 2(a) commodity means live-stock, products of live-stock origin, live-stock genetic material, biological products and pathological material of live-stock origin, keeping in view: Animals are living creatures- A). IPC 47.
B). Section 2 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Supply information as stated above with file notings."
The CPIO vide letter dated 12.07.2023 replied as under:-
"No specific information sought in this RTI"
Further vide reply dated 11.08.2023, the CPIO informed as under:
2. In this context, it is to inform that no specific information has been sought in the application. Further, the information on "The Live-stock and Live-stock Products [Importation and Exportation] Bill, 2023" is relate to secret file, on which final decision yet not been taken. Hence, as per section 8 (1) (i) of Right to Information Act, 2005, the information may not be disclosed at this movement.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Dr. Anirudha Udaykar - Assistant Commissioner; Smt. Anamika - US/CPIO; Shri Kamal Kumar - Sr. Statistical Officer were present conference during hearing.
Respondent present during hearing stated that appropriate response in response had been duly furnished to the Complainant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
On perusal of records of the case and upon hearing averments of the Respondent present for hearing, it is noted that the Respondent had replied appropriately, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant did not attend the hearing and has chosen not to buttress the case. Since the Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which can be Page 2 of 3 adjudicated is whether there was any deliberate or willful concealment of information. From the records of the case, it appears that the reply sent by the Respondent is in consonance with the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.
It is relevant to note the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. .. the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that since information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
The case is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)