Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Department Of Animal Husbandry And ... on 25 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/646924
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/650976
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/662035
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/664500
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/652694
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/652661
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/662113
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/662114
Naresh Kadyan ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Animal Welfare Board of India,
RTI Cell, NIAW Campus, 42 Mile
Stone, Delhi-Agra Highway, NH-2,
Ballabhgarh, Haryana-121004.
2. The CPIO,
Asst. GM, Agricultural and Processed
Food Products Export Development
Authority, RTI Cell, 3rd Floor, NCUI
Building 3, Siri Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, Opp. Asiad Village,
New Delhi-110016.
3. CPIO,
Department of Animal Husbandry &
Dairying, RTI Cell, Chanderlok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
4. CPIO,
Department of Animal Husbandry,
Dairying and Fisheries, RTI Cell, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Road, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 21/07/2023
Date of Decision : 21/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above mentioned Complaints have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from complaints:
Complaint RTI CPIO's reply First Appeal FAA's order Complaint
no. Application filed on dated filed on
dated
646924 15/01/2020 12/02/2020 11/03/2020 N.A. Nil
650976 04/07/2022 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
662035 01/09/2022 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
664500 16/09/2022 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
652694 11/07/2022 08/08/2022 Nil 08/09/2022 Nil
652661 12/07/2022 N.A. 13/08/2022 18/08/2022 Nil
662113 26/09/2022 07/10/2022 07/10/2022 13/10/2022 Nil
662114 27/09/2022 06/10/2022 07/10/2022 13/10/2022 Nil
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/646924
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.01.2020 (received by Respondent no. 1 on transfer basis) seeking the following information:
"Please explain with details, list the compliance of every point, year wise collection, distribution of fines, list of beneficiaries, the status of SPCA, covered under these Rules & list of functional Infirmaries etc. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (K) of sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, some having been previously published as required by the said Section, namely Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Application of Fines) Rules, 1978.
Definitions: In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) Act means the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960)
(b) Board means the Animal Welfare Board of India established under the Act
(c) Fines means fines levied under the Act.
3. Fines, after deducting the cost of collection, to be made over to the Board I. Fines levied and realized under the Act shall, subject to any deductions relating to the cost of collection, be made over by the State Government to the Board as soon as may be after due appropriation by law (State Legislature) in this behalf.
4. Application of fines made over to Board: (1) Fines made over by any State Government to the Board shall be applied exclusively for the following purposes, namely:
(i)the grant of financial assistance to societies dealing with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or organization actively interested in animal welfare work which are for the time being recognized by the Board.
(ii) the maintenance of infirmaries, pinjrapoles, and veterinary hospitals. (2) Fines realized in one State and made over to the Board shall be utilized only for the benefit of such societies or other organizations within the jurisdiction of the State and not otherwise.
5. Principles to govern the application of fines: In applying the fines for the benefit of societies or other organizations in any State, the Board shall have due regard to the following principles, namely:
(i) Financial assistance shall first be given to societies dealing with the prevention of cruelty to animals within the jurisdiction of the state which are for the time being recognized by the Board.
(ii) In granting financial assistance to such societies, due regard shall be had to the amounts they had been receiving from the State Government prior to the coming into force of these rules, and consistently with the amount of fines at its disposal and having regard to the revenues of the Societies concerned, the objects for which assistance is to be given and other relevant matters, the Board shall make every endeavor to ensure that there is no diminution in the amounts such societies had been receiving earlier.
(iii) If after the grant of financial assistance to the societies earlier referred to in this rule, there is any unspent balance, it may be applied by the Board at its discretion for the benefit of any other organization actively interested in animal welfare work include."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12.02.2020 stating as under:
"The Board has not received any fine amount from any States/UTs as per the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Application of fines) Rules. 1965 during the last three years. Hence, no information is available with the Board."
Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/650976 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.07.2022 (received by Respondent no. 1 on transfer basis) seeking the following information:
"SCOUTS AND GUIDES FOR ANIMALS AND BIRDS with OIPA: Indian People for Animals, leading establishments, supply present status with impact, and copies of concerned files notings with communications received by the AWBI, under which authority AWBI, claimed Advisory, quote Rule, section of PCA Act, that:
1. Copies of all communication made with Central Information Commission, related to Naresh Kadyan, by AWBI and Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, as many as 43 till today.
2. Action taken on DOAHD/E/2021/00777 with copy of Dr. Sandeep Jain, then Member of AWBI, inspection report with all communications, related to PFA Haryana.
3. AWBI Request for disclose the particulars of Gochar-grazing land available in each village and make the same available for grazing of cows in, respective States.
4. AWBI Advisory for proper implementation of Care and Maintenance of case property Animals Rules, 2017, along with feeding charges for all species of animals and birds.
5. AWBI Request to activate the functioning of State Animal Welfare Board.
6. AWBI Advisory to ensure ban on keeping the aerial birds in cages.
7. AWBI Request to properly implement and circulate the standard protocol for the adoption of community animals.
8. AWBI Guidelines for Animal Shelters regarding Veterinary facilities.
9. Communication with Indian Parliament about animals treated as goods.
10. Complete list of AWOs, sanctioned and released funds by the Animal Welfare Division, before transferring to AWBI, and present status, from beginning till date with the impact related to animal welfare.
11. Present status, use and impact of NIAW with number of animals benefited with the veterinary Hospital facility, within NIAW premises and funds spent on them, since beginning till date.
12.Mr. Sujit Kumar Dutta has claimed the capacity of a Doctor (Regd Veterinarian) however he is serving with Government of India Fraudulently as he is not a regd. Veterinarian in violation to Section 30B of the IVCA 84 and 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. He is fraudulently holding this post with GoI having his License expired 25 yrs ago.
13. Action taken on DOAHD/E/2022/00320.
14. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2018 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog Breeding and Marketing) Rules, 2017.
15. Complete list of:
A). State Animal Welfare Board with power delegation, as per section 37 of PCA Act.
B). District SPCAs, as per section 3 of SPCA Rules.
C). Infirmaries, as per section 29 of the PCA Act.
D). Police powers delegated as per section 34 of the PCA Act. E). Powers delegated under section 37 of the PCA Act."
Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/662035 CIC/APPEA/C/2022/652694 Information sought:
The Complainant filed separate RTI application (s) dated 01.09.2022 and 11.07.2022 with Respondent no. 1 seeking the following information:
"Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds www.scoutingindia.in with OIPA: Indian People for Animals observed that:
1. There is no coordination among AWBI, APEDA, FSSAI, CPCB, and Police, because the halal process of slaughtering without stunning, is very cruel, violating IPC 47, 120-B, 188, 268, 289, 428, 429, read with section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960, and article 51 A(g) of the Indian Constitution.
2. Commercial use of biological resources read with the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014.
Hence,
1. Supply complete list of all slaughter houses, all around India, killing animals and birds, without stunning, adopting Halal process of cruel practices, including Gazipur in Delhi.
2. Supply complete list of all Meat Shops, all around India, killing animals and birds, without stunning, adopting Halal process of cruel practices, including all around Delhi.
3. Supply all copies of guidelines, circulars, policies along with copies of court orders, related to Halal process of slaughtering instead stunning.
4. Define halal process of certification and slaughtering.
5. Defines Stunning process.
6. Supply complete demand of meat, pork, fish, sea foods, cow veal, cow beef, area wise and source of supply with consumption.
7. Surplus animals and birds, census in India, offered to be slaughtered, for local consumption and export.
8. Complete details of incentives, grant in aid, export - import, granted to promote meat export.
9. Any future planning, to restore 5 freedoms for animals, protecting legal Right of life, for animals and birds."
In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/662035 -
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated NIL. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
In case no. CIC/APPEA/C/2022/652694 -
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the complainant on 08.08.2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1. & 2. APEDA does not have any comments to make.
1. List of Abbatoirs/ meat processing units registered with APEDA can be seen by clicking the following link:
https://apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/menupdges/AbattoirsMeatProcessingP lants.htm
2. APEDA does not maintain the list of meat shops all around India.
3. Not available with APEDA
4. Not available with APEDA
5. Not available with APEDA
6. Ministry of Fishery, animal husbandry and dairy may be contacted
7. Ministry of Fishery, animal husbandry and dairy may be contacted
8. APEDA provides financial assistance to its registered exporters through it's Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) which aims to facilitate the export of agri-
products including animal and dairy products under the following components:
i) Development of Export Infrastructure
ii) Quality Development
iii) Market Development The details of financial assistance guidelines are available at APEDA Website www.aveda.govin under the icon scheme.
9. No attachment received."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated NIL. FAA's order dated 08.09.2022, partially upheld the reply of the CPIO and further held as under:
"The reply given by the CPIO has been seen by me. It has been found that as per the information available with APEDA, the reply has been sent by the concerned CPIO.
However, with respect to point no. 1 "Supply complete list of all slaughter houses, all around India, killing animals and birds, without stunning, adopting Halal process of cruel practices, including Gazipur in Delhi", it is to mention that the information is not available with APEDA.
With respect to point no. 9 "Any future planning, to restore 5 freedoms of animals, protecting legal right of life, for animals and birds", it is to mention that the information is not available with APEDA."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/664500 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2022 with Respondent no. 1 seeking the following information:
"Supply copies of all public documents, covered under section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, under section 76, read with section 4 of RTI Act, be uploaded on the official website of Department of Animal Husbandry, including AWBI-
1. CIC decided 183 matters, related to Naresh Kadyan, including as many as 55 matters of Animals and 40 matters of animal welfare, supply all copies submitted to CIC by AWBI and AH.
2. As per official website of AWBI, confirm that complete public documents uploaded with each minute of AWBI meetings, including Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961 and PCA (Amendment) Act, 1982.
3. India Code, as per compliance of High Court orders, Department of Animal Husbandry, have uploaded, PCA Act, 1960 with only 30 Rules and 50 Notifications, Zero Regulations, Zero orders, Zero circulars, and Zero ordinance and nothing for Statutes, supply complete details and list of Rules made under PCA Act, 1960, confirming that, nothing more than issued, by the Ministry, wing, or Division, AWBI.
4. Copies of compliance about Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (The Transport of Animals) Rules, 2020 and copies of all communications, related to camel transportation.
5. Copies of Standard operating Procedure, shifting Camels in goods transport vehicles, as per the National Research Centre on Camel.
6. Copies of approved mechanism, as per Bureau of Indian Standards, to transport Camels in a special vehicle.
7. Define Camel as a cattle, commodity, vehicle, or goods, instead living creature.
8. Natural habitat of camel, whether their meat is hygienic for human consumption, as food, complete details.
9. FAA of AWBI, disposed many 1st Appeals, as on 7, 8 and 16-9-2022, without passing speaking orders, supply all copies of CPIO, via email.
Supply all copies of communications, complete list, and details, along with concerned file notings, as desired 1 to 9 above."
Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated NIL. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/652661 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.07.2022 (received by Respondent no. 3 on transfer basis) seeking the following information:
"1. CIC decided 150 matters of 2nd Appeal, of Naresh Kadyan, concerned Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries has sent 55 cases reply and other documents to CIC, without supplying me, concealing actual information, as desired.
2. 20 matters of 2nd Appeal related to Naresh Kadyan, to be heard by the CIC.
3. All berth holders in CIC, are duty bound, under oath but Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, 2nd Appeal are mishandled, by the concerned CIC, supply all complaints against her with disposal, under protest I have boycott her, besides she is a public servant, on the pay role of public funds.
4. I have moved all applications under RTI, to perform my fundamental duties, without gain and profit, whereas CIC dealt matters of Application under RTI, for the CPIO of the Central Information Commission:
Community Policing as man of many achievements and distinctions: Voice for voiceless: Fighter by spirit: Jat by birth: Philanthropist by profession: Activist by mission: Humanitarian by choice, Gandhian by vision and action, being habitual khadi wearers and scout warrior, speaking truth as passion: CIC asked to supply, all communications received, related to:
1. CIC decided 150 matters of 2nd Appeal, of Naresh Kadyan, concerned Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries has sent 55 cases reply and other documents to CIC, without supplying me, concealing actual information, as desired.
2. 20 matters of 2nd Appeal related to Naresh Kadyan, to be heard by the CIC.
3. All berth holders in CIC, are duty bound, under oath but Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, 2nd Appeal are mishandled, by the concerned CIC, supply all complaints against her with disposal, under protest I have boycott her, besides she is a public servant, on the pay role of public funds.
4. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, allotted to the CIC, is a duty bound, against pay and perks, whereas all my applications are to without gain and profit, only to perform fundamental duties."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2022. FAA's order, dated 18.08.2022, held as under:
"Details of information sought may please be provided for suitable resolution under RTI appeal."
CIC/DOAHD/C/2022/662113 CIC/DOAHD/C/2022/662114 Information sought:
The Complainant filed separate RTI applications dated 26.09.2022 and 27.09.2022 (received by Respondent no. 3 on transfer basis) seeking the following information:
"PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (Election of Members to Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961
1. Short title: - These Rules, may be called the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Election of Members to Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961.
2. (1) Manner of electing and choosing representatives to serve as members of the Board.
The election of one person to represent such associations of veterinary practitioners as in the opinion of the Central Government ought to be represented on the Board under clause (c) of sub - section (1) of section 5 of the Act shall be conducted by that association in the following manner:-
(i) The association shall fix the date, time and place of a meeting at which the election of a representative will take place.
(ii) the election of a representative of the association on the Board shall specifically be included as one of the items of the agenda of that meeting.
(iii) The notice of the meeting shall be circulated at least fifteen, days before the date of the meeting.
(iv) the election shall be by a majority of votes of members present and voting.
(2). The election of persons to represent the municipal corporations under clause (e) of sub-section (l) of section 5 shall be conducted by the respective corporations in the manner specified In sub-rule (1) of this rule.
(3). The representatives of organizations and societies to serve as members of the Board under clauses (f) and (g) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act shall be chosen, by the Governing Body, the Managing Committee or the Executive Committee of the respective bodies, in the manner specified in sub-rule (1) of this rule."
The CPIO furnished individual replies to the complainant on 07.10.2022 and 06.10.2022 stating as under:
"The above information is not available. It is requested that the applicant should not seek information which is beyond the retention period."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 07.10.2022. FAA's order, dated 13.10.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO, held as under:
"The records are beyond the time limit mentioned in Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005. These records are not available in the Department. Hence, the information cannot be made available the applicant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant set of Complaints.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent no. 1: Prachi Jain, Assistant Secretary & CPIO present through intra- video conference.
Respondent no. 2: Rajni Arora, DGM & CPIO along with Dr. Sudhashu, Secretary & FAA present through intra-video conference.
Respondent no. 3: Siddharth Shankar, SSO & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
Respondent no. 4: Anamika Nigam, U.S. & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
Detailed written submissions received in each case from the CPIOs' prior to the hearing, are all taken on record.
Each CPIO submitted that he has nothing further to add in the matter except for what has already been submitted in writing through latest written submission flagging the repetitiveness of the RTI Applications and Appeals regarding the concern /grievance for alleged ill treatment of the Animals and also issues pertaining to the grant of financial assistance to societies dealing with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or organization actively interested in animal welfare work. Each CPIO further added that reply as per their understanding has already been provided to the Complainant, as per the RTI Act. (copy enclosed in the written submissions).
Here, the Commission would like to recall the earlier detailed decision on the similar matters of the Complainant passed on 14.06.2023 vide File Nos. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/605620 and others with the following observations -
"....At the outset, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that a bunch of Complaints (s)/ Appeals bearing File no.
CIC/MORTH/A/2020/685460 & others of the same Complainant against different public authorities have already been heard and disposed of by this bench on 07.11.2022, 27.12.2022, 18.01.2023 and 06.02.2023. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the nature of queries or in other words same statements he made to ask for clarifications from the CPIO merely to pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Complainant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Applications in question is of the considered view that the queries raised by the Complainant are more in the nature of observations and in fact are vague and in determinate which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act per se. For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Complainant shall note that the outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the replies and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing are in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Moreover, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Complainant to initiate any penal action against the CPIOs for the want of malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty."
Having observed as above, no further action is warranted in the instant matters."
Furthermore, in the backdrop of the Complainant's repetitive RTI Applications, it will not be out of place to refer to the following observations of a former bench of the Commission with respect to another bunch of the Appellant filed against the AWBI vide File No. CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/673430 + 7 cases:
"...the Commission expresses severe displeasure against the conduct of the Appellant because initially he had informed the Registry of this Bench to exempt his appearance in person and had requested the Bench to grant permission to take part in the hearing virtually (WhatsApp video/audio call), which was rejected by the Commission. Subsequently, the Commission was generous enough to grant him an opportunity to take part in the instant hearing from NIC Ahmedabad, which was booked from 1120 hrs to 1350 hrs (for 16 cases listed on 04.01.2022), yet, the Appellant chose to take part in the proceedings, physically, thereby disrespecting the Commission's efforts in scheduling the instant hearing.
Be that as it may, the queries sought in the instant RTI Application are not only lengthy but cryptic and unspecific. Therefore, The Commission counsels the Appellant to be careful, mindful and watchful in future while filing RTI Applications and not to flood the public authority by filing umpteen numbers of RTI Applications. In this regard the Commission finds it relevant to rely upon certain judgments of various Courts in India, wherein the factum of misuse of the right to information has been highlighted adequately. The excerpts of the same are as under:
a. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) vs. B. Bharathi., W.P. No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014 has also given its opinion about vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"... The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest..." [Emphasis supplied] b. The Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors., W.P.(C) 845/2014 has stated as under:
"... Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act".
A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law..." [Emphasis supplied] c. In the matter of Rajni Mendiratta v. Dte. of Education (North West-B]., W.P.(C) no. 7911/2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.10.2015 stated as under:
"8. ... Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto..."
In addition, the Commission would not be wrong to consider that the Appellant's move to seek voluminous information is only to harass the public authority and not with an intention to seek information. The Appellant rather appears to have converted the provisions of the RTI Act as a tool of oppression/intimidation, which the Commission discourages outrightly.
d. In the matter of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3336, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"... The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency. However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use..."
e. In the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"33. ... The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interests...
xxx
37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability... ...
Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties..."
[Emphasis supplied] Keeping in view of the aforesaid observations, the Commission sternly cautions the Appellant to use his right to information in a judicious manner..."
Decision The Commission observes that in light of the applicability of factual matrix of observations quoted above, the instant matter is considered as a mere extension of the earlier cases filed by the Complainant on the same grievance regarding ill treatment/ alleged cruelty committed on the animals which cannot be redressed under the mandate of RTI Act. Thus, no action is warranted with respect to the replies of the CPIOs'.
Adverting to the above observations, the Commission is not inclined to question the merits of the CPIO's reply in the instant matters. The Appellant/Complainant is advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed.
Nonetheless, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIOs' are directed to share a copy of their respective written submissions free of cost with the Complainant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date