Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Ministry Of Road Transport & Highways on 10 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110006.
File No : CIC/MORTH/A/2020/685460 +
CIC/MORTH/A/2020/686752
Naresh Kadyan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, MVL Section, RTI Cell,
Transport Bhawan, 1,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/11/2022
Date of Decision : 07/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/12/2019 & 09/07/2020
CPIO replied on : 08/01/2020 & 25/08/2020
First appeal filed on : 09/01/2020 & 09/08/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 26/02/2020 & Not on record.
2nd Appeal (s)/Complaint dated : NIL
1
CIC/MORTH/A/2020/685460
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 13.12.2019 seeking the following information;
1. "Police, Army & Para Military Forces animals are exempted under Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 & Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 along with Cattle Transport Rules, 1978, amended in 2001 & 2009, please confirm & supply me the copies of circulars, orders passed, directions issued to the field functionaries, related to said exemption.
2. Status with copies of rules & regulations of transportation of Camels by road, in goods transport vehicles, Camel Van - Dog Van, Bureau of Indian Standards, Prototype restoring five freedoms of animals & birds.
3. Status of orders passed - circulars - guidelines issued, about installation of Animal scanner on every too plaza, restoring their five freedoms, prohibiting cruelty against animals.
4. Status of complaint lodge - petition submitted by Naresh Kadyan to the Minister of State Mansukh Bhai during his tenure in Road Transport & Highways about animal shifting - transportation.
5. Status reports on the implementation of 11th Amendments in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 2015 along with the complete list of cases booked for the violation of 11th Amendment with copies of orders passed to cancel the registration of vehicles, violating the provisions of 11th Amendments in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
6. Transportation of Camels by Border Security Force from Rajasthan to Delhi for Republic Day parade in goods transport vehicles, present status of complaint lodged against cruel camel transportation.
7. Status cum compliance report of Compendium containing various standards, including animal transportation, Rules and statutes Governing the Slaughter of animal and Management of Slaughter House, In accordance judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court for the bunch of petition titled as common cause Vs UOI, Writ Petition (C) No. 330 of 2001 with Petition (Civil) No. 44 of 2004, Contempt Petition 2 (C) 124 / 2015 in W.P.( Civil) No. 309 of 2003 Laxmi Narain Modi Vs Union of India & Others, under the jurisdiction of Urban & Local Bodies with Panchayati Raj Ministry."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 08.01.2020 stating as follows:-
"2. The undersigned is dealing with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (CMVRs). Both MV Act and CMVRs are available on this Ministry's official website: www.morth.nic.in. With reference to your queries it is stated that rule 125(E) of CMV Rules, 1989 contains the provisions of special requirements of Motor vehicles transporting livestock. Implementation of CMVRs and MV Act comes under the purview of State Transport Departments. You may, therefore, write to the notified Public Authority in the State / UT concerned for further requisite information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.01.2020. FAA's order dated 25.02.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO and further observed as under:-
"...........Special requirements of motor vehicles, transporting livestock are contained in rule 125E of CMVRs and as per Rule 125E(4) : The RTO shall issue special licences for the motor vehicles meant for carrying animals on the basis of vehicles modified in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2). This Ministry's notification G.S.R. 904(E), dtd.23.09.2016 (copy available on this Ministry's official website) : In the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in rule 125E, (i) for sub-rule (3), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:- " (3) No motor vehicles meant for carrying animals shall be permitted to carry any other goods, while carrying animals. "; (ii) after sub- rule (4), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
"Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to a vehicle carrying livestock belonging to farmers". As implementation provisions of CMVRs and MV Act including issue of Traffic Police come under the purview of State Transport Departments, it is, therefore, advised to contact the concerned Transport Authority of the State/ UTs concerned for further requisite information. Further, as per observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court on RTI Act, 2005 (Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011), only such information can be supplied which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority."3
CIC/MORTH/A/2020/686752 Information sought:
The Appellant filed online RTI application dated 09.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Smt. Maneka Gandhi, being public servant as Member of Parliament, seems to be habitual of abusing power & Authorities, I hereby confirmed as I had been very close Associates with her, due to difference between opinion along with her abusive behaviors, I disassociate myself with her activities. On Friday - Saturday midnight (12-13 June, 2020), she admitted on mobile that on her instructions, two female Elephants of Great Golden Circus were loaded in a goods transport vehicle bearing No. GJ37 T 9758 for Radha Krishana Temple Trust, based at Jamnagar in Gujarat, said vehicles were stopped by Police, handed over to the Forest Department, with in jurisdiction of Rajkot, her audio recording in my custody, dully shared with all concerned. In past, she submitted false statement before Central Zoo Authority, on behalf of PFA & obtained public funds as grant in aid, which were recovered with interest, on my complaint, whereas 250 captive Monkeys were left abandoned by her to die, threat to public life & property. Prani Mitra Award, 1996 also obtain by her as Minister in Charge of Animal Welfare, abusive her power. Under RTI Act, 2005, please reply as Speaker of Lok Sabha:
1. Supply me all the copies of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Rules & Regulations to carry two elephants in a goods transport vehicles.
2. Supply me all the copies of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Rules & Regulations to carry 100 Camels of Border Security Force, in a goods transport vehicles.
3. Supply me complete details, related to Smt. Maneka Gandhi, term wise of Membership of Lok Sabha, define period along with sessions she attended, list of private bills she introduced in Lok Sabha, since 9th Lok Sabha on wards till date.4
4. Supply me complete details, related to Smt. Maneka Gandhi, term wise of Membership of Lok Sabha, pay & perks with other facilities she obtained & enjoyed, since 9th Lok Sabha on wards till date.
5. Supply me complete details, related to Smt. Maneka Gandhi, confirming her as public servant, accountable to all voters of her Parliamentary Constituency along with her power & duties allowing two female elephants loading in goods transport vehicles.
6. Smt. Gauri Mulekhi & Anand Chaudhary, had been companion of her as Union Cabinet Minister, Women and Child Development, supply me copies of appointment letters in the Ministry along with complete details about pay, perks & other facilities, incentives, both were paid by the Ministry.
7. On wards 13-9-2019, Smt. Maneka Gandhi, being Member, Consultative Committee, Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, supply me copies of her letters, Notes & all communications as Member, Consultative Committee, Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries.
8. Indian Forest Services, Conservator of Forest at Rajkot granted permission to transport vehicle bearing No. GJ37 T 9758, loaded two Elephants, supply me copies along with CCF eligibility to grant such permission."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.08.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Subsequently, the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 18.08.2020 stating as follows:-
2. "The undersigned is dealing with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (CMVRs). Both MV Act and CMVRs are available on this Ministry's official website: www.morth.nic.in. With reference to your query it is stated that Rule 125(E) of CMV Rules, 1989 contains the provisions relating to special requirement of motor vehicles transporting livestocks.
Implementation of provisions of Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 (CMVRs) and Motor Vehicles Act (Amendment), 2019 come under the purview of State 5 Transport Departments/UTs. You may, therefore, write to the notified Public Authority in the State / UT concerned for further requisite information."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: S K Geeva, U.S. & CPIO present through audio/video-conference.
The CPIO submitted that in response to both the averred RTI Applications, point wise reply along with relevant available information has already been provided to the Appellant. Upon Commission's instance, he facilitated a detailed discussion on the subject matter of information sought by the Appellant and also about the provisions of Rule 125 (E) of CMV Rules, 1989.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of the instant RTI Application(s) that the information sought by the Appellant is unspecific and indeterminate which concededly does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act and also the fact remains that in case no. CIC/MORTH/A/2020/686752 the information sought for majorly contains the elements of personal information of third parties which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that 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.
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 6 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) 7 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) Further, as regards the applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is concerned, attention of the Appellant is invited towards a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, 8 disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
(Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as it was in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief to be add on in the matter.
However, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and always quote relevant exemption clause of Section 8/9 of RTI Act while denying any information in response to RTI Applications in future.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9