Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Delhi Police on 18 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2024/648393
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 14.02.2025
Date of Decision : 14.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 23.08.2024
PIO replied on : 17.09.2024
First Appeal filed on : 17.09.2024
First Appellate Order on : 26.09.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 06.11.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"From the desk of Brand Ambassador Viyana Berwal via her grandpa: Remembering Chaudhary Om Prakash Kadyan with Smt. Prem Kaur Dhankar, founder of PFA Haryana, and Chaudhary Sardar Singh Khatkar with Smt. Basant Mala Dahiya, during golden jubilee years of Naresh Kadyan activism, for animals, as Community Policing as Scouting for fundamental duties. Community Policing in good faith as scouting for Elephants: Supply complete details, copies of each and every communication, guidelines, circulars, compliance 17th Project Elephant Steering Committee Meeting with present status, including-
Following legislation, describing Elephant word, term as cattle, in their definition, which is wrong, as per decision, of the 17th Project Elephant Steering Committee Meeting, based on the whistle blowers complaints made by Smt. Sukanya Berwal and Abhishek Kadyan, with me, being tireless worriers for flora and fauna, without any gain:
A). Indian Forest Act B). Cattle Trespass Act Page 1 C). Delhi Police Act.
D). Haryana Police Act E). Punjab Police Act F). Chandigarh Police Act G). Police Act, 1861 applicable in UP H). Gujarat Police Act
1). Bombay Police Act.
Supply action taken on the decisions of 17th Project Elephant Steering Committee Meeting, related to mishandling Elephant as CATTLE being National Heritage Animal of India, with protection cover under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Supply details and copy of proposal, placing and covering under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
The CPIO-cum-Dy. Commissioner of Police(Hdqrs.-II), Delhi Police vide letter dated 17.09.2024 replied as under:-
"As per record of this Hdqrs., no such type of order/S.O./Circular is available specifically related to elephants."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 26.09.2024 stated as under:-
"The undersigned has carefully considered the contents put-forth by the appellant in his first online appeal dated 17.09.2024, online RTI application dated 23.08.2024, reply by PIO/PHQ dated 17.09.2024 and other documents available on file, it is found that PIO/PHQ has informed the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI act-2005, in which no ambiguity is found."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: SI Ghanshyam, Insp. Rajesh Kumar, Shri Dharmendra, ACP The CPIO vide written submission dated 10.1.2025 submitted that an online RTI application registration No. DEPOL/R/E/24/08060 dated 23.08.2024 of the appellant was received on RTI-MIS portal. PIO/PHQ after taking assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act-2005 from the concerned branches of PHQ, informed the appellant vide letter No. XXIV/29/Spl/ID- 3907/2024/39779/RTI Cell/PHQ dated 17.09.2024 that no such type of orders/S.O./Circular is available specifically related to elephants.
Page 2 Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. 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. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of Page 3 the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies. The Complaint is disposed of 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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)