Central Information Commission
Ashish V Pradhan vs Animal Welfare Board Of India on 10 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/AWBIC/A/2024/138340
Ashish V Pradhan .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Animal Welfare Board of
India, NIAW Campus, 42 Mile
Stone, Delhi-Agra Highway,
Vill - Seekri, Ballabhgarh,
Haryana - 121004 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.10.2025
Date of Decision : 09.10.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.04.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 09.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.11.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.04.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Pl find enclosed a copy of Handwriting Expert's Opinion Report dated 11/12/2008 by Handwriting Expert Shri Ulhas J Athale, Nagpur 440010, which has been sent to you even before.Page 1 of 5
The above said report very clearly opines that even when seen normally and through rigorous analysis including camera photograph and by giving eleven detailed reasons for the same, the purported signature of chairman/head, G.M Lodha on the 'Confidential Note' dated 08/10/2001 is not made by him - "I am of the opinion that the disputed signature marked as D1 is not made by the person who made the comparative signatures S1, S2" Ulhas J Athale, Handwriting Expert. And this in other words is forgery of Lodha's signature on the said note by some impersonator who has committed the forgery for AWBI office which is a criminal offence with seven years jail.
However, no enquiry has so far been conducted in the matter other than dubiously, deliberately and mischievously throwing the responsibility of catching the impersonator of Lodha's signature on late Lodha himself as if he was an Investigative Officer, only in order to unlawfully shield the wrongdoer and to cover up the criminal act of forgery committed with impunity only to cheat the then sec K. Babu into signing the unlawful termination notice dated 12/10/2001 to illegally remove the applicant from the service of the AWBI. It is also clear that the AWBI office is purposefully acting against the established law that in the case of a disputed signature/handwriting, handwriting expert's opinion report alone will hold the ground and its finding have to be respected.
In this respect therefore pl send me the following information as per the act cited above.
1.Pl write the recorded points/ reasons for not launching an FIR (First Information Report) with the police station of appropriate jurisdiction in the abovementioned matter when as per the Hand Writing Expert's Opinion Report dated 11/12/2008 G.M Lodha's signature on the Confidential Note dated 08/10/2001 is forged which is a criminal offence as explained above and needed to be taken with the seriousness it deserved.
2.Kindly send the copies of the postal dispatch receipts (both ways from Madras to Delhi and back) through which the 'Confidential Note' dated 08/10/2001 was sent to head G.M Lodha along with the copy of covering letter addressed to him without making any false, fake and flimsy excuses untenable in the eyes of law which will be reported to the Respected Central Information Commissioner for necessary action."Page 2 of 5
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.07.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Ms. Prachi Jain, Assistant Secretary & CPIO, appeared in person.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 22.11.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application had already been replied to vide letter dated 22.05.2024, which was subsequently endorsed by the FAA vide order dated 09.09.2024. The contents of the CPIO's reply given to the Appellant are reproduced as under:
"With reference to the above-cited subject, the following information is furnished hereunder:-
Ans. 1: The information sought is not as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, it is informed that as per the decision dated 3.4.2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.419 of 2007 in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State Information Commission, that the term "information" as defined in the Right Information Act does not include answers to the question like "why". The relevant par of Judgment is reproduced below:-
"The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asked 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. Justification are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information"
However, it is stated that the Board has forwarded the representation in which it has been requested to address the long standing administrative Page 3 of 5 issues related to the termination of the service, to the Under Secretary. DAID. Ministry of Fisheries. Animal Husbandry and Dairying for consideration and necessary action. A copy of the same is enclosed for your information. The same has already been provided in earlier RII vide letter No. 5 23/2023-24/RTI dated 18.10.2023.
Ans. 2: The information sought is beyond the retention period. Hence, it is not available."
Decision:
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has provided a categorical and reasoned reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 22.05.2024, duly endorsed by the FAA. Copies of the replies given to the Appellant are placed on record. The information sought by the Appellant mainly pertains to reasons, explanations, and administrative actions taken or not taken by the Respondent, which do not qualify as "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
7. Further, the grievance raised by the Appellant relates to allegations of forgery and service-related disputes, which fall outside the scope of adjudication under the RTI Act, and are more appropriately to be addressed before the competent forum. The Respondent's explanation citing the Celsa Pinto judgment and record retention limitations is found to be reasonable and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope for intervention 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 Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, Animal Welfare Board of India, NIAW Campus, 42 Mile Stone, Delhi-Agra Highway, Vill - Seekri, Ballabhgarh, Haryana - 121004 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)