Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 3 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/602355
Naresh Kadyan ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. The CPIO,
Director General of Audit (Central),
Chandigarh Indian Audit & Accounts,
Department Audit Bhawan, Plot No. 21,
Sector 17E, Chandigarh- 160017.
2. CPIO
Controller and Auditor General (CAG),
Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi-110124.
....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02-02-2026
Date of Decision : 02-02-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 30-10-2024
CPIO replied on :
First appeal filed on : 29-11-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 06-12-2024
Complaint dated : 14-01-2025
CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/602355 Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30-10-2024 seeking the following information:
"Community Policing in good faith as scouting for the mandate of transportation of animals with the mandate of AWBI and Ministry of Rod Transport and Highways:
As per Principal Director of Audit (Central) Chandigarh-
1. Whether the financial management and utilization of resources were efficient and effective?
2. Whether the activity of the unit was executed as per the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960?
3. Whether the procurement was made as per norms of GFR and delegation of financial powers?
Whereas, team of audit never examine as stated above, because AWBI made produced, false and fabricated records, related to compliance of legal mechanism. Since beginning till date of establishment of AWBI and their objectives functions, Supply complete details of compliance, copies of all efforts with present status, including Camel Transportation Rules and Regulations, related to:
1. Article 51A of Indian Constitution, read with section 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960/section 2(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, keeping in view, Rule 96 of the Animal Transportation Rules, 1978, amended in 2001 and 2009/Rule 13 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001 / Central Motor Vehicle (Eleventh Amendments) Rules, 2015 Central Motor Vehicle (13th Amendments) Rules, 2016 and Central Motor Vehicle (13th Amendments) Rules, 2018/ Rule 3 of the Veterinary Council of India Standard of Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics, for Veterinary Practitioners Regulations, 1992/Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Husbandry Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2023 / Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001/Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 amended in 2010.CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/602355 Page 2 of 6
2. Compendium issued in CWP No. 309 of 2003, of Supreme Court, read with orders passed on 27-8-2013, installation of animal scanner as well.
3. Section 2(d) of the Prevention and Control of Infectious and Contagious Diseases in Animals Act, 2009: Compulsory vaccination means vaccination of any animal against any scheduled disease in respect of which vaccination is made mandatory under the provisions of this Act.
4. Stunning process of slaughtering, keeping in view, haram process of animal shifting as goods, besides Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011/Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulation, 2011 / Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restriction of Sales) Regulation, 2011/Food Safety and Standards (Vegan Foods) Regulations, 2022.
5. Copies of CCTV footage of all points of entrances, in the APEDA affiliated slaughterhouses, their feasibility as well."
2. Having not received any response from CPIO concerned (Not available on record), the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 29-11-2024. The FAA vide order dated 06-12-2024 stated as under:
"Reply: Your RTI appeal has already been transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to Office of the Director General of Audit (Central), Chandigarh through registered post vide this affice letter No. 3768-RTI/3199, 3205 & 3206-2024 dated 02.12.2024 under intimation to you vide letter No. 3769-RTI/3199, 3205 & 3206- 2024 dated 02.12.2024."
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/602355 Page 3 of 6Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: 1. Mr. Jishu R. Raju, Dy. Director (CB) & CPIO, on behalf of Office of CAG, New Delhi, attended the hearing in person.
2. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Director (Admin) & CPIO, on behalf of Office of DGA, Chandigarh, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The Respondent, Mr. Jishu R. Raju, Dy. Director (CB) & CPIO, on behalf of Office of CAG, New Delhi, submitted that the complainant filed the RTI application with CAG. However, the same was transferred U/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, to the O/o DGA, Chandigarh vide letter dated 30.10.2024.
5. The respondent, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Director (Admin) & CPIO, on behalf of Office of DGA, Chandigarh, submitted that the complainant's points are not clear and the sought information is in the nature of queries/clarifications/ for solving the problems. The complainant has not sought any information as defined U/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, and the same was informed to the complainant vide letter dated 05.12.2024.
6. Written submission dated 28.01.2026 filed by the Office of CAG, New Delhi & written submission dated 30.01.2026 filed by the Office of DGA, Chandigarh are taken on record.
CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/602355 Page 4 of 6Decision
7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the points sought by the complainant are vague and not specific. Therefore, the Commission finds that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the complainant vide letter dated 05.12.2024. In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 02.02.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Director General of Audit (Central), Chandigarh Controller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, Indian Audit & Accounts Department Audit Bhawan, Plot No. 21, Sector 17E, Chandigarh- 160017.CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/602355 Page 5 of 6
2. The CPIO Controller and Auditor General (CAG) of India Director General of Audit (Central), Indian Audit & Accounts Department Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi-110124.
3. The FAA, Director General of Audit (Central), Chandigarh Controller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, Indian Audit & Accounts Department Audit Bhawan, Plot No. 21, Sector 17E, Chandigarh- 160017.
4. Shri Naresh Kadyan CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/602355 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)