Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Central Council For Research In ... on 27 December, 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/CFRAS/C/2023/629789.
Shri Naresh Kadyan. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic
Sciences.
Date of Hearing : 26.12.2024
Date of Decision : 26.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11.04.2023
PIO replied on : 02.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 02.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 29.05.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 19.06.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Please confirm point wise, that:
1. No sufficient research, No doubt Gau Milk, Ghee, Curd can be consumed as diet but Dung and Urine, impossible to consume as medicine, there are NO specific research, dung may be a fertilizer and urine as pesticides for agriculture cultivation purpose, instead eat and drink, being discharge of animal body.
2. Beef (Flesh of cow-veal) has not any property as medicinal values, confirmed
3. No Advisory for Educational purpose, under section 9(k) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, on panchgavya with other devotional property.
4. No Regulations, under section 10 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, on panchgavya, and cow properties and values, in Hindu religion.
5. AWBI confirmed, vide No. 3-4/2021-22/PCA, on dated 6-2- 2023, that We all know that cow is the backbone of Indian Page 1 culture and rural economy, sustains our life, represent cattle wealth and biodiversity. It is known as Kamdhenu and Gaumata because of its nourishing nature like mother, the giver of all providing riches to humanity. Vedic traditions are almost on the verge of extinction due to the progress of west culture over time. The dazzle western civilisation has made our physical culture and heritage almost forgotten. In view of the immense benefits of cow, hugging with cow will bring emotional richness hence will increase our individual and collective happiness. Therefore, all the cow lovers may also celebrate the February 14 as cow hug day keeping in mind the importance of mother cow and make life happy and full of positive energy. This issues with the approval of competent authority and on the direction of Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Hence, supply all copies, complete list of evidences as claimed by AWBI, glorifying cow, dung and urine, fit to consume as medicine by humans, along with action taken report on points raised. Further supply the medicinal property of cow beef and veal, as claimed by 1. Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakkshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015.
2. U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. 3. Punjab prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 4. Himachal Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1979."
The CPIO, Admn. Officer (Project) vide letter dated 02.05.2023 replied as under:-
"1 & 2 No such documented information is available with CCRAS; 3 to 5 Information sought does not come under the purview of CCRAS."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.05.2023. The FAA, Director General vide order dated 29.05.2023 stated as under:-
"2. The information have been furnished to the appellant by CPIO, CCRAS, vide Council's letter dated 2.5.2023.
3. Not satisfied with the Council's reply dated 2.5.2023, he has preferred ONLINE RTI APPEALs vide Regn.No.CCRAS/A/E/23/00003 and CCRAS/A/E/23/00004 dated 2.5.2023 on the grounds that provided incomplete, misleading and false information furnished by CPIO, CCRAS, New Delhi.
4. Both the ONLINE RTI Appeals have been considered by the undersigned as First Appellate Authority and it is informed that the reply furnished vide Council's letter dated 2.5.2023 is considered enough to serve the purpose and there is no such documented information is available with CCRAS. With this information, the Appeals are disposed off."
Page 2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 20.12.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof as under :
Overall remarks:
The council reiterates its earlier reply.
The information on Cow urine and cow dung is available in Ayurveda text books which is in the public domain, Ayush Research portal https://ayushportal.nic.in/ etc. The information on cow urine and cow dung is also available in the CCRAS publication entitled "Inventory of Animal Products Used in Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani, Part-1. (https://ccras.nic.in/wp- content/uploads/2024/10/22102024-List-of-the-Publications-of- CCRAS.pdf S. no. 1 & 2 of publication on Pharmacology) Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Renu Ranjan, AD, Dr. Y.R. Sanjaya Kumar, AD(Pharmacology), Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Consultant- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission. They further stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Applicant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an Page 3 appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007.
The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. 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. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that 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."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Page 4 Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Complaint 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 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)