Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 7 April, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DOLAF/C/2024/607658
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of Legal Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.04.2025
Date of Decision : 03.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.01.2024
PIO replied on : 04.01.2024
First Appeal filed on : 04.01.2024
First Appellate Order on : 29.01.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"Section 143:
Magistrate may prohibit repetition or continuance of public nuisance- A District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate empowered by the State Government or the District Magistrate in this behalf, may order any person not to repeat or continue a public nuisance, as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or any special or local law. C-Urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
Section 144.
Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger- (1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully Page 1 of 3 employed, or danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray.
Whereas, office of SDM at Ahmedabad, returned my complaint, which was moved to issue orders under 144 CrPC, bearing No. 6915 to 19, dated 29-12-2023, seems to be refused, hence complaint against this public servant, holding berth of SDM, may kindly be considered for immediate direction to the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat, for regulation of 5 freedoms for animals, for further lifetime treatment, care and shelter, legal rights of human beings, preventing conflict among human beings with all living creatures other than human beings. Supply complete details, all communications along with concerned file notings, action taken of complaints lodged under 133 and 144 CrPC, all over India with present status. AWBI sue moto, as per mandate. Supply action taken on complaint lodged with Gujarat Govt., DM-SDM Ahmedabad, under 133-144 CrPC"
The CPIO, Department of Legal Affairs vide letter dated 04.01.2024 replied as under:-
"I am to say for your RTI application, as mentioned in the guidelines for use of this portal, this facility is not available for filing RTI applications for the public authorities under the State Governments, including Government of NCT Delhi. Since your RTI application is meant for a public authority under the State Government, the same is returned herewith. You may file the same before the concerned public authority under the State Government."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 04.01.2024. The FAA vide order dated 29.01.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 20.03.2025 has been received from the CPIO, Department of Legal Affairs stating that since the subject matter of the RTI application pertained to Government of Gujarat, hence it was returned to the Applicant requesting him to approach the concerned State Government. It has further been stated by the Respondent that as per the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the basic function of the Department is to, inter alia, tender advice to Ministries/Departments of Government of India on Legal matters. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Complainant: Not present Respondent: Shri Jyoti Divya - Dy. Legal Adviser, Department of Legal Affairs was present during hearing.
Respondent present during hearing stated that appropriate response had been provided to the Applicant in this case, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act. The Applicant has chosen not to contest the case.
Decision:
Upon careful examination of the facts of the case and upon hearing averments of the Respondent present during hearing, it is noted that the Respondent had sent Page 2 of 3 appropriate response to the Applicant, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant has chosen not to buttress the instant case. Since the Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which needs to be 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 appropriate information had been provided by the Respondent, and the reply suffers from no legal infirmity, there appears no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case. Therefore, 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)