Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Department Of Animal Husbandry, ... on 10 June, 2024
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/DOAHD/C/2023/641753
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and
Fisheries
Date of Hearing : 06.06.2024
Date of Decision : 06.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18.06.2023
PIO replied on : 13.07.2023
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 29.08.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Livestock means, all living creatures except human beings, Right: Section 2 (e) live-stock includes all equines (all live equine irrespective of purpose including donkey, horses, mule, assess, hinnies), bovines (all bovine animals including cattle, buffaloes, bullocks or any animals falling in the category of bovidae), caprines, ovines, swines, canines, felines, avian, laboratory animals, aquatic animals and any other animal which may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette from time to time, except those prohibited in any other act.
Section 2(f) live-stock products include meat and meat products of all kinds including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue, organs of bovine, poultry, Page 1 pig, sheep, goat egg and egg powder, milk and milk products, bovine, ovine and caprine, embryos, ova, semen pet food products of animal origin and any other animal product produced from live-stock as notified under section 2 (e) by the Central Government in the Official Gazette from time to time. Supply all concerned communications, legal advices and opinions with file notings, along with the complete list as action taken, as granted Power to regulate importation of live-stock and live-stock products. Power to make arrangements for promotion and development of exports of live-stock and live-stock products.
Supply complete list of Rules made as stated above, with complete list and details of penalty, since beginning till date."
The CPIO vide letter dated 13.07.2023 replied as under:-
"Reply :- Department is regulating import of live-stock and livestock products under the Live-stock Importation Act, 1898 and Live-stock Importation (Amendment) Act, 2001 Copy of this act and other notification under this act is available on DAHD web portal i.e. dahd.nic.in"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.07.2023. The CPIO with approval of FAA stated as under :
Undersign is directed t0 refer to the online RTI appeal по. DOAHD/A/E/23/00029, dated 13.07.2023 received through RTI Cell of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD).
2. In this context, it is to inform that presently, Department is regulating import of Livestock and Livestock Products under "The Livestock Importation Act 1898 and "The Live- stock Importation (Amendment) Act, 2001". All the rules and regulation made under this act is available on Departments web portal at https://dahd.nic.in/trade- archive
3. The information on The Live-stock and Live-stock Products [Importation and Exportation] Bill, 2023 is relate to secret file, on which final decision yet not been taken. Hence, as per section 8 (1) (1) of Right to Information Act, 2005, the information may not be disclosed at this movement.
4. This has the approval of First Appellate Authority.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 2 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Dr. Aniruddha Udaykar, Assistant Commissioner and Ms. Anamika, US/CPIO- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent reiterated the contents of their reply and stated that relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Complainant. They apprised the Commission that their department is regulating import of Livestock and Livestock Products under "The Livestock Importation Act 1898 and "The Live- stock Importation (Amendment) Act, 2001" and all the rules and regulation made under the aforesaid Act is available on their official website.
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."
Page 3 "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 the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"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.
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)