Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Animal Welfare Board Of India on 6 January, 2022
CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/675670
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/675670
In the matter of:
Naresh Kadyan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Assistant Secretary Animal
Welfare Board of India National
Institute of Animal Welfare
Campus , 42 KM Stone,
Delhi-Agra Highway, NH-2,
Ballabhgarh, Faridabad,
Haryana- 121004
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 04.03.2020
CPIO replied on : 01.04.2020
First Appeal filed on : 09.04.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Second Appeal received on : 28.06.2020
Date of Hearing : 04.01.2022
Page 1 of 9
CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/675670
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Naresh Kadyan participated in the hearing through intra-video
conferencing from Central Information Commission.
Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar, CPIO and Under Secretary, Dept. of Animal
Husbandry and Smt. Prachi Jain, CPIO and Asst. Secretary, Animal Welfare Board
of India participated in the hearing through intra-video conferencing from Central
Information Commission.
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 04.03.2020 seeking information on the following five points:
"Under the Maneka Gandhi, Minister In charge of Animal Welfare Division, misuse her position, promoted her own NGO adopted conflict of interest, even Anuradha Sawhney, Ex Chief Functionary of PETA India, availed Ambulance & Shelter grant in aid, which were minsutilised, her Ambulance was sold out by Maneka Gandi, funds were not returned to the AWD, besides it Ambulances are also condemns but never auction, creating heavy financial loss to the AWD, please provide complete details about Anuradha Sawhney, along with:
1. Animal Welfare Division under the control of Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment sanctioned & released grant in aid for Ambulance & Shelter for animals in distress, please supply me complete list & details of funds sanctioned & disbursed head wise along with the utilization position with present status
2. Animal Welfare Division under the control of Ministry of Statics & Programme Implementation, sanctioned & released grant in aid for Ambulance & Shelter for animals in distress, please supple me complete list & details of funds sanctioned & disbursed head wise along with the utilization position with present status
3. Animal Welfare Division under the control of Ministry of Culture, sanctioned & released grant in aid for Ambulance & Shelter for animals in distress, please supply me complete list & details of funds sanctioned & disbursed head wise along with the utilization position with present status
4. Complete details - list about Ambulances declared condemns & auctioned, describing the procedure of auction Page 2 of 9 CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/675670
5. 250 Monkeys of Hanuman Vatika left abandoned by Maneka Gandi, without rehabilitation as per norms as her PFA recognition was revoked by CZA, Gauri Mulekhi submitted false statement of rehabilitation, supply me all communication made & received with process of rehabilitation of these 250 Monkeys along with details about their proper natural habitiat."
Ms. Prachi Jain, CPIO and Assistant Secretary, Animal Welfare Board of India, Ballabhgarh, Haryana vide letter dated 01.04.2020, informed the Appellant as under:
"1 to 4: The name of the Animal Welfare Organisation of Anuradha Sawhney, Ex-Chief Functionary of PeTA is required for providing the details of the information.
5: As per the available records, no information is available regarding the Hanuman Vatika with the Board."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.04.2020, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent.
The Respondent submitted that appropriate information has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 01.04.2020. Upon queried by the Commission as to whether the First Appeal was adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority, she replied in affirmative. She further submitted that on 20.05.2020 had upheld the reply of the CPIO.Page 3 of 9
CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/675670 A written submission has been received by the Commission from Dr. S.K. Dutta, Appellate Authority and Secretary vide letter dated 28.12.2021, wherein he has apprised the Commission as under:
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent had sought the name of Animal Welfare Organisation of one Smt. Anuradha Sawhney, Ex-Chief Functionary of PeTA to provide the relevant information sought at point nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI Application, which the Appellant has not provided till date. Hence, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the Respondent. Notwithstanding the above, the Commission expresses severe displeasure against the conduct of the Appellant because initially he had informed the Registry of this Bench to exempt his appearance in person and had requested the Bench to grant permission to take part in the hearing virtually (WhatsApp video/audio call), which was rejected by the Commission. Subsequently, the Commission was generous enough to grant him an opportunity to take part in the instant hearing from NIC Ahmedabad, which was booked from 1120 hrs to 1350 hrs (for 16 cases listed on Page 4 of 9 CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/675670 04.01.2022), yet, the Appellant chose to take part in the proceedings, physically, thereby disrespecting the Commission's efforts in scheduling the instant hearing.
Be that as it may, the queries sought in the instant RTI Application are not only lengthy but cryptic and unspecific. Therefore, The Commission counsels the Appellant to be careful, mindful and watchful in future while filing RTI Applications and not to flood the public authority by filing umpteen numbers of RTI Applications. In this regard the Commission finds it relevant to rely upon certain judgments of various Courts in India, wherein the factum of misuse of the right to information has been highlighted adequately. The excerpts of the same are as under:
a. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) vs. B. Bharathi., W.P. No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014 has also given its opinion about vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"... The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest..."
[Emphasis supplied] b. The Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors., W.P.(C) 845/2014 has stated as under:
"... Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law..."
[Emphasis supplied] Page 5 of 9 CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/675670 c. In the matter of Rajni Mendiratta v. Dte. of Education (North West-B]., W.P.(C) no. 7911/2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.10.2015 stated as under:
"8. ... Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto..."
In addition, the Commission would not be wrong to consider that the Appellant's move to seek voluminous information is only to harass the public authority and not with an intention to seek information. The Appellant rather appears to have converted the provisions of the RTI Act as a tool of oppression/intimidation, which the Commission discourages outrightly.
d. In the matter of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3336, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"... The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and
(j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act.
But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency. However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring Page 6 of 9 CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/675670 transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use..."
e. In the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"33. ... The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interests...
...
37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability... ... Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public Page 7 of 9 CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/675670 authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties..." [Emphasis supplied] Keeping in view of the aforesaid observations, the Commission sternly cautions the Appellant to use his right to information in a judicious manner. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands dismissed.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 05.01.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 8 of 9 CIC/AWBIC/A/2020/675670 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Animal Welfare Board of India National Institute of Animal Welfare Campus P.O. 42 KM Stone, Delhi-Agra Highway Village-Seekri, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana121004
2. The Central Public Information Officer /Assistant Secretary Animal Welfare Board of India National Institute of Animal Welfare Campus, 42 KM Stone, Delhi-Agra Highway, NH-2, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana- 121004
3. Mr. Naresh Kadyan Page 9 of 9