Central Information Commission
Nitin Singhvi vs Central Zoo Authority, New Delhi on 5 October, 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/CZAUR/ C/2023/129764
Nitin Singhvi ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
The CPIO Central Zoo Authority,
B - I ,wing, 6th Floor,
Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi- 110003. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26/09/2023
Date of Decision : 26/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07/12/2022
CPIO replied on : 13/03/2023
First appeal filed on : 06/02/2023
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint dated : 01/07/2023
1
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.12.2022 seeking following information:
"Please provide the collection plan of all animals and the latest inventory reports of all animals of Green Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Kingdom, Jamnagar, Gujrat."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 13.03.2022 stating as under:
"The requested information is confidential information of the third part. You are therefore, requested to set out compelling grounds and circumstances rooted in facts to warrant infringement of privacy/ confidentiality. In this Je regard, it is pertinent to note that the Tripura High Court, in Sri Mrigankar Sekhar Dey vs Union of India WP(C)(PIL) No. 05/2022 has held that:
"Where a statute confers a right, which in the instant case is the right of a third party to refuse furnishing of private or confidential information, same cannot be wiped out in a manner except as set out in that statute. To outweigh the privacy/ confidentiality of a third party; presumptions and baseless allegations alone are not sufficient, and the seeker of information must set out compelling grounds and circumstances rooted in facts to warrant infringement of privacy/ confidentiality. Provisions of RTI cannot be read down to make privacy of individuals amenable to fishing inquiry and a fine balance is required to be maintained between public-interest and privacy/confidentiality of private party."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 06.02.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through Audio-Conference.2
Respondent: Ravinder Singh Rawat, Dr. Devendra Kumar, EMO and Surya Gupta, Law Officer present in person.
Anish Shahaourkat, Advocate representative of Green Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre present in person.
The written submissions of the Appellant, Respondent and third party are taken on record.
The Complainant reiterated the contents of the instant Complaint as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and argued that reply was not provided to him within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Rep. of CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with the relevant available information has already been provided to the Complainant. The Respondent further submitted that however, in pursuance of observations made by the Hon'ble Tripura High Court in the recent decision of Sri Mrigankar Sekhar Dey vs Union of India WP(C)(PIL) No. 05/2022 at this stage, no additional information can be made available to the Complainant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaints was non-receipt of information from the CPIO within stipulated period of time as per the RTI Act. In this regard, it was noteworthy that an appropriate reply/information by the Respondent has been provided vide letter dated 13.03.2023 as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission observes that there is a delay in providing reply to the Complainant and also there is a delay in disposing of the first appeal of the Complainant and no plausible reason was offered by the Respondent in this regard.
In view of the foregoing, the First Appellate Authority is hereby advised to be cautious in future and the CPIO is directed to send a cogent and detailed written submission to the Commission to show cause as to why no action should be initiated in the matter under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The said written submission of the CPIO along 3 with supporting documents, if any, shall reach the Commission within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
The Respondent is advised to share a copy of their written submissions with the Complainant immediately after the hearing is over on his e-mail ID/whatsapp and through speed post also.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4