Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Border Security Force 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/BDRSF/C/2024/623237
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Border Security Force ...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 : 08.04.2024
PIO replied on : 16.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 16.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 13.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 03.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"Community Policing as scouting in good faith for Camels, domesticated by Indian Army, and paramilitary Forces, like BSF, in the presence of Brand Ambassador Viyana Berwal: Supply complete details, question replies before Indian Parliaments, related to CAMEL transportation, without rules and regulations, related to:
1. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
2. Copies of all communications received and made.
3. Camel Van, proposal and approval with present status
4. Copies of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of animals) Rules, 2020, as claimed by public servant, holding berth in BSF as Commandant at Jodhpur, along with the approval-gazette Notification of the Government.
5. Copies of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Target of animal) Rules, 2020, as claimed by public servant, holding berth in BSF as Commandant at Jodhpur, along with the approval-gazette Notification of the Government.
6. Camels are being transported by a private goods transport vehicle, supply complete list and numbers of vehicles, along with copy of tender being public document.
7. Complete details about NOC-Pre-transport permit obtained by BSF, from RTO-RTA- NHAI-AWBINRCC and Rajasthan State Animal Husbandry Department, as per Rule 96 of the Transportation of Animals Rules, 1978, amended in 2001 and 2009.Page 1 of 3
8. Copies of exemptions obtained by BSF, to breach public trust, violating the Delhi Police Standing order No. 31 of 2022.
9. Copies of exemptions obtained by BSF, to breach public trust, committing contempt of court of law: CWP No. 309 of 2003, upheld 5 freedoms for animals, 27- 8-2013 mechanism endorsed by a Supreme Court.
10. Copies of exemptions obtained by BSF, to breach public trust, contempt of judicial advisory, endorsed but Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court, related 5 freedoms for animals.
11. Leg tied loading and unloading, travelling as well, which is claimed by a BSF, in their communications, and questions and replies in Parliament, supply copies with present status of permission granted under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Husbandry Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2023
12. Copies of strict compliance of oath sworn in by all veterinarians, as per Rule 3 of Veterinary Council of India Standard of Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics, for Veterinary Practitioners Regulations, 1992.
13. Strict compliance of the Rajasthan camel (prohibition of slaughter & regulation of temporary migration or export) act, 2015.
14. Restoration of 5 freedoms for camels, keeping in view, section 33 of the BSF Act, 1968 and all exceptions obtained, applied and granted, along with copies of State Animal Welfare Board, Delhi and Rajasthan."
The CPIO, Border Security Force vide letter dated 16.04.2024 replied as under:-
"In reference to your online RTI application No.00045 dated 08/04/2024, it is to be intimated that as per RTI Rule-2005 under act 24(1) 2nd schedule s/No.9 BSF is exempted from providing information except from corruption and human right violation."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 13.05.2024 stated as under:-
02. "In this regard, it is to inform that in terms of section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005, "Border Security Force being a Security Organization as listed in the Second Schedule of the said Act, has been exempted from the provisions of this Act, except on the cases involving Allegations of corruption and violation of Human Rights". 03 In view of above, we express our inability to furnish the required information as the information sought by you does not fall within the ambit of Section 24 of RTI Act 2005. Hence, your appeal under reference is hereby rejected."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Complainant: Not present Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Saran - Second-in-Command; Shri Anand Singh - DIG, BSF and Dr. G S Nag were heard during hearing.
Respondents present during hearing stated that response in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act had been duly provided to the Applicant in this case. The Applicant has chosen not to contest the case.Page 2 of 3
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 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) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)