Central Information Commission
Anubhav Parihar vs Veterinary Council Of India on 29 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/VCOIN/A/2024/613836
Anubhav Parihar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
under RTI Section Officer & CPIO,
Veterinary Council of India, A- Wing,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.10.2025
Date of Decision : 29.10.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 29.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 09.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 04.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"Can a private practitioner use anesthesia or xylazine to trim a dogs hair Should a doctor obtain written permission from the dog owner when giving anesthesia or xylazine injection to a dog Page 1 of 6 Are private veterinarians given any permission by the Central or State Government to use anesthesia or xylazine in dogs"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.01.2024 stating as under:
"It is to inform you that the Veterinary Council of India has been established under the provisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act 1984 to regulate veterinary education and matter connected therewith and ancillary thereto The information sought by you vide RTI Application referred to above is not related to Veterinary Council of India as the same does not come under the purview of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. Hence, information may be treated as NIL."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 05.03.2024, held as under.
"After going through the Appeal, it has been observed that the Appellant has sought information related to use of anaesthesia in animals and procedure for treatment of animals. The aforesaid matter does not comes under the purview of Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and the CPIO, VCI vide letter No.1-64/2023-VCI/3386 dated 29.2.2024 has already provided the information in this regard. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Balbir Singh, Section Officer & CPIO and Shri T.P. Singh, Assistant Secretary & Appellate Authority present in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 01.04.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
Page 2 of 66. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the relevant extracts of the same are reproduced hereinbelow:
"The Veterinary Council of India (VCI) is a Statutory Body of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Government of India constituted under the provisions of Indian Veterinary Council (IVC) Act, 1984 to regulate veterinary practice and to provide for that purpose for the establishment of Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils, end the maintenance of Registers of veterinary practitioners, to lay down minimum standards for veterinary education and for matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto. A copy of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 is enclosed for kind information at Annexure 4 B. BRIEF SUBMISSION AGAINST THE CASE 1 At the outset, it is stated that information sought by the Appellant does not related with the Veterinary Council of India 2 That it is very relevant to mention here that at present there is no regulation/Rules framed under the provisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 for regulating the practice in respect of private practitioners in term of use of anesthesia or xylazine to trim a dogs hair, for taking written permission from the dog owner when giving anesthesia or xylazine injection to a dog or any permission by the Central Government or State Government in the matter.
3 The Act has been framed mainly for the purpose of regulations of Veterinary practice limited to preparation of register and to provide for the purpose for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of persons qualified to engage in veterinary practice for the whole of India 4 That at present provisions of the Act have been extended in the all States and Union Territories.
5 The Act has been divided into VIII Chapters. The Chapters I to V prescribe jurisdiction related to the Central Government and Veterinary Council of India. State Governments and State Veterinary Councils have jurisdiction over Chapter VI and VII. Chapter VIII is miscellaneous where Page 3 of 6 Central Government and Veterinary Council of India, State Government and State Veterinary Councils have jurisdiction. The main provisions of the Act for regulation of veterinary practice is as under:-
xxxxxxxxxx The appellant vide RTI Registration No.VCOIN/R/E/24/00001 dated 04/01/2025 sought information related to use of anesthesia or xylazine to trim a dogs hair, for taking written permission from the dog owner when giving anesthesia or xylazine injection to a dog and any permission given to the private practitioner by the Central Government or State Government to use of anesthesia or xylazine in a dog
8. As already stated in foregoing paras that there is no provision in the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 for the purpose for which the appellant has sought information.
9. That in view of the above facts, CPIO vide letter No. 1-64/2024-
VCI/3386 dated 29/1/2024 disposed the RTI Application and informed to the Appellant that the information is not related with Veterinary Council of India. A copy of the letter dated 29/1/2024 is enclosed at Annexure -2. 10 That the Appellant preferred First Appeal to FAA of this Council vide Appeal No VCOIN/A/E/24/00004 dated 9/2/2024 against the CPIO reply dated 29/1/2024.
11. That this Appeal was disposed by First Appellate Authority of VCI vide Order No. 1-64/2024-VCI/3801-2 dated 05/03/2024 wherein it was again informed about the matter does not comes under the purview of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and CPIO vide letter dated 29/1/2024 has already provided the information. A copy of the Order passed by FAA of this Council vide Order No. 1-64/2024- VCI/3801-2 dated 05/03/2024 is enclosed at Annexure -3.
12. That in view of the above facts and submission of Applicant's Appeal is devoid of merit and it is requested to kindly consider for disposal of the said Appeal."
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has been provided to the Appellant informing him the factual position in the matter. The FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 4 of 68. He further submitted that copy of their written submissions has also been shared with the Appellant.
Decision:
9. The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of information by the CPIO. The Commission observes that reply/information in the matter has already been provided to the Appellant as per his RTI application informing him the factual position in the matter within the period stipulated under the RTI Act. Further, copy of written submissions has also been shared with the Appellant.
10. It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant.
11. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
12. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, Veterinary Council of India A- Wing, IInd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, Delhi 110066 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)