Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs on 23 February, 2026
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No:
CIC/MOUHA/C/2024/614659
CIC/MOUHA/C/2024/610018
CIC/MOUHA/C/2024/635341
Naresh Kadyan ...... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1.The CPIO, US, MOUHA, Smart 3.The CPIO, Gandhinagar Smart City
City-1, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi- Development Ltd., Sec-16,
110011. Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382016.
4.The CPIO, Smart City Ahmedabad
2.The PIO, Faridabad Smart City Development Ltd., Opp. Divan
Ltd., Municipal Corporation Ballubhai School, Nr. Sanskar
Faridabad, BK Chowk, Faridabad-
Kendra, Paldi, Ahmedabad-3800
121001
Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026
Date of Decision : 23.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
The above-mentioned complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant is
same and the information sought in these cases is similar in nature and
hence is being disposed of through a common order.
Page 1 of 13
Case No. RTI CPIO reply First FAA order Complaint
application Appeal
614659 31.01.2024 19.02.2024 19.02.2024 19.02.2024 09.04.2024
610018 14.01.2024 19.01.2024 19.01.2024 04.04.2024 08.03.2024
635341 20.01.2025 30.01.2025 30.01.2025 14.02.2025 01.08.2025
1. COMPLAINT- CIC/MOUHA/C/2024/614659
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.01.2024 seeking information regarding, "A). Animal Hospital - 928.327 square meter:
B). OT for big animals: 666.87 square meter C). Dog shed: 72.00 square meter D). Cat shed: 12.02 square meter E). Birds shed: 30.00 square meter F). Wild animals: 40.00 square meter G). Large animals: 150.00 square meter Supply complete details, and copies of relevant record, animals treated, handled and admitted, in the above facility, during Animal Welfare Fortnight 2024. Supply complete details, and copies of relevant record, animals treated, handled and admitted, in the following facility, during Animal Welfare Fortnight, since last 11 years, Head wise expenditure as well, including medicines: A). Animal Hospital - 928.327 square meter: B). OT for big animals: 666.87 square meter C). Dog shed: 72.00 square meter D). Cat shed: 12.02 square meter E). Birds shed: 30.00 square meter F). Wild animals: 40.00 square meter G). Large animals: 150.00 square meter"
CPIO, Smart Cities Division-I vide letter dated 19.02.2024 stated as under:
Page 2 of 13"in this connection it is informed that, this division is dealing with smart city mission and Govt. of India launched the smart city mission (SCM) on June 2015. The selection of 100 smart cities has been completed through 4 rounds of selection from January, 2016 to June 2018. The Implementation of SCM at the city level is done by SPVs created for the purpose. These SPVs are entities registered under the companies Act 2013 with 50:50 ownership of urban local projects. The smart city SPV has responsibility to plan, appraise, approve, implement, manage, operate, monitor and evaluate the smart city development projects. Since, information requested pertains to the Faridabad Smart City your RTI application is being transferred to CEO, Faridabad Smart City Ltd. being an independent public authority."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, Smart Cities Division-I Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024. FAA vide order dated 12.04.2024 states as under:
"...CPIO has already transferred the RTI application to CEO Faridabad Smart City as the matter pertains to them, therefore no further action requires"
Being aggrieved the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 16.02.2026 filed by the CPIO, Smart Cities Division-I is taken on record, which states that vide letter dated 19.02.2024 reply was given and then appellant filed a first appeal on 19.02.2024 which was disposed of by FAA in 19.02.2024 stating that CPIO has already transferred the RTI application to CEO Faridabad Smart City as the matter pertains to them, therefore no further action requires.
2. Complaint -CIC/MOHUA/C/2024/610018 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.01.2024 seeking information:
(i) Action taken on the People for Animals at Ahmedabad, animal shelter cum dog jail at Zundal in Gandhinagar District by the Gujarat State Animal Birth Control Page 3 of 13 Implementation and Monitoring Committee, along with the Animal Welfare Board and Secretary, Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Office of Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry, Gandhinagar.
(ii) Supply complete list of dogs captured, rescued and rehabilitated along with all facilities available, keeping in view, Guidelines for Animal Shelters with regard to Veterinary facilities, which were badly violated, breaching public trust.
CPIO, Smart Cities Division-I vide letter dated 19.01.2024 stated as under:
"Please refer to your RTI application no. MOURB/R/E/24/00102 dated 14/01/2024 received on transfer from CPIO, Town and Country Planning Organisation seeking information under RTI Act 2005.
In this connection it is informed that, this division is dealing with Smart Cities Mission and Government of India launched the Smart Cities Mission (SCM) on 25 June 2015. The selection of 100 Smart Cities has been completed through 4 rounds of selection from January, 2016 to June, 2018. The implementation of SCM at the City level is done by SPVs created for the purpose. These SPVs are entities registered under The Companies Act, 2013 with 50:50 ownership of Urban Local Bodies and respective States. They plan, implement, operate, and monitor their development projects. The Smart City SPV has responsibility to plan, appraise, approve implement, manage, operate, monitor and evaluate the Smart City development projects. Since, information requested pertains to Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad Smart Cities your RTI application is being transferred to CEOS, Gandhinagar Smart City Ltd and Ahmedabad Smart City Ltd being an independent public authority"
The Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2024. The FAA vide order dated 04.04.2024 stated as under:
"1. Shri Naresh Kadyan. C-38, Rose Apartment, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) filed an RTI application no MOURB/R/E/24/00102 dated 14/01/2024 under the Right to information Act. 2005 (RTI Act). The appellant filed this appeal no MOURB/A/E/24/00015 dated 19/01/2024 stating that incomplete and misleading information provided to him.Page 4 of 13
2. I have carefully considered the RTI application and this appeal and find that CPIO has transferred the RTI application to the CEOs of Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar Smart Cities under Rule 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 for necessary action vide letter dated 19" January, 2024 as the information sought pertains to them. Hence, no further action is required to be taken by CPIO. MOHUA
3. If the applicant/appellant has not received any response from Ahmedabad Smart City Ltd and Gandhinagar Smart City Ltd, he may file an appeal to Appellate Authority of Ahmedabad Smart City Ltd. and Gandhinagar Smart City Ltd."
Being dissatisfied the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submissions dated 16.02.2026, filed by the CPIO, Smart Cities-I Division is taken on record which states that the RTI application dated 14.01.2024 did not pertain to the Smart Cities Mission policy division. Accordingly, the application was transferred to Gandhinagar Smart City Limited and Ahmedabad Smart City Development Limited as the subject matter appeared to relate to those entities Written submissions dated 13.02.2026 filed by CPIO, Ahmedabad Smart City Development Limited is taken on record which states that the RTI application was received via email on 19.01.2024 from MoHUA. Upon examination, it was found that the information sought did not fall within the purview of Smart City Ahmedabad Development Limited. The issues raised related to animal shelters, stray dog management and related municipal functions, which are handled by the Cattle Nuisance Control Department of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Therefore the RTI application was transferred to CNCD, AMC on 22.01.2024 and intimation in this regard was also given to CPIO, Smart Cities-I Division via email on 23.01.2024.
3. Complaint -CIC/MOHUA/C/2024/635341 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2025 seeking the following information:Page 5 of 13
"Animal Welfare Fortnight 2025: Functions of the State Committee for Slaughter Houses so constituted may be as following:
1. To identify and prepare a list of all the Slaughter Houses, located within the local self Govt. Municipal Corporations, Cantonments, Panchayats etc
2. To call for reports from the District Magistrate or the Dy Commissioner and District Food Safety Inspector as the case may be on the condition functioning of the S.H.s and also on the compliance of the relevant applicable laws.
3. To recommend modernization of old slaughter houses and to relocate S.H.s which are located within or in close proximity of a residential area.
4. To recommend appropriate measures for dealing with solid waste, water, air pollution and for preventing cruelty to the animals meant for slaughter.
5. To carry out surprise and random inspections of S.H.s regularly and to issue directions for compliance of the recommendations that may be made by it.
6. To send bi annual reports on the state S.H.s to the Central Committee and to refer issues that may require Central Committee recommendations or Central Govt. assistance.
7. To accord final approval for licensing of S.H.S to Local Self Govt.
8. To identify on an ongoing basis, the unlicensed slaughter houses in the region, and other unlicensed, unlawful establishments where animals are being slaughtered, on howsoever a small scale, and take the help of the District Magistrate and other law enforcement agencies to crack down on the same.
9. To check for child labour. The core infrastructure elements in a Smart City would include: Adequate water supply, assured electricity supply, Sanitation, including solid waste management, Efficient urban mobility and public transport, Affordable housing, especially for the poor, Robust IT connectivity and Digitalization, Good Governance, especially e-Governance and citizen participation, Sustainable environment, Safety and security of citizens, particularly women, children and the elderly, and Health and education. Supply copies of all circulars and policies, as stated above, being Smart City Mission, AWBI lost credibility, defeated purpose, read with article 51A of Indian Constitution."
The CPIO, Smart Cities Division-I furnished a reply to the complainant on 30.01.2025 stating as under:
Page 6 of 13"In this connection it is informed that, this division is dealing with Smart Cities Mission and Government of India launched the Smart Cities Mission (SCM) on 25 June 2015. The selection of 100 Smart Cities has been completed through 4 rounds of selection from January, 2016 to June, 2018.
Further, it is informed that, the implementation of Smart Cities Mission is done by a City Level Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) established and incorporated under Companies Act, 2013 by the respective ULB and State/ UTs on 50:50 joint venture. The Smart City SPV has responsibility to pan, appraise, approve implement, manage, operate, monitor and evaluate the Smart City development projects and are being an independent public authority. Also, Smart Cities Mission Statement and Guidelines is available in public domain through the web link as mentioned below:-
https://smartcities.gov.in/themes/habikon/files/SmartCityGuidelines. pdf"
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.01.2025. The FAA vide its order 14.02.2025 stated as under:
"The First Appeal filed by applicant has been examined. It is observed that the CPIO does not hold the requisite information as sought by the applicant in the RTI application dated 20.01.2025 and a 'NIL' reply, along with web link of Smart Cities Mission Statement & Guidelines for reference, was provided by the CPIO to the applicant vide letter dated 30th January, 2025, as the subject f animal welfare is not dealt with in Smart Cities Division in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. Therefore, the infirmity in the decision of the CPIO as conveyed to the appellant. It is, however, observed that the information requested for by the appellant may pertain to the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Therefore, the original RTI application dated 20.01.2025 is being transferred to the PCIO in the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing the desire information directly to the appellant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 7 of 13Written submission dated 16.02.2026 filed by CPIO, Smart Cities-I Division, is taken on record which states that vide reply dated 30.01.2025, the complainant was informed that the information sought does not relate to the Smart Cities Mission and treated as "nil". It is further submitted that the First Appellate Authority, vide order dated 14.02.2025, observed that there was no infirmity in the reply of CPIO. However, it was also noted that the subject matter may pertain to the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, and therefore the RTI application was transferred to that Ministry for appropriate action.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present Respondent: Mr, Sabak Lal CPIO, MoHUA, Mr. Akash Satwara, Ahmedabad Smart City Development Ltd/CPIO through VC at NIC studio Ahmedabad
4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
5. The Appellant is not present despite the serving of notice of hearing.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted as follows:-
The CPIO, Smart Cities-I Division, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, submitted that the RTI applications were duly examined and it was found that the Smart Cities-I Division deals only with policy level matters relating to the Smart Cities Mission. It was further submitted that since the information sought by the appellant pertained to Faridabad, Ahmedabad and Ghandhinagar Smart City and issues relating to animal shelters, stray cattle, slaughter houses and related infrastructure at the city level, the RTI applications were transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act on 19.02.2024 to the CEO, Faridabad Smart City Limited and Ahmedabad and Ghandhinagar Smart City Development ltd. It is further submitted RTI application dated 20.01.2025 sought copies of circulars and policies relating to Animal Welfare Fortnight 2015, functions of State Committees for Slaughter Houses, and other matters which, according to the CPIO, did not pertain to the Smart Cities Mission. It is also submitted by CPIO, Smart Cities-I Division, Ministry of Housing and Page 8 of 13 Urban Affairs, that vide reply dated 30.01.2025, the complainant was informed that the information sought does not relate to the Smart Cities Mission and treated as "nil". It is further submitted that the First Appellate Authority, vide order dated 14.02.2025, observed that there was no infirmity in the reply of CPIO.
The CPIO, Ahmedabad Smart City Ltd submitted that the RTI application dated 14.01.2024 was received via email on 19.01.2024 from MoHUA. The same was transferred to the Cattle Nuisance Control Department of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 22.01.2024 as the matter pertains to them. The applicant was informed through email dated 23.01.2024, and a copy of the transfer communication was also sent by post. .
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties present and perusal of the records and written submissions notes that the RTI applications were addressed primarily to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Smart Cities-I Division) and which were transferred by the CPIO under section 6(3) of the RTI Act to Faridabad Smart City Limited, Ahmedabad Smart City Development Limited, Gandhinagar Smart City Limited. The Commission observes that the Smart Cities-I Division deals with policy formulation and monitoring of the Smart Cities Mission at the Government of India level, whereas implementation of projects is undertaken at city-level.
The Commission further notes that the RTI Act provides access only to information available and held by or under the control of a public authority as defined under Section 2(f). Many of the queries raised by the appellant seek explanations, enforcement of statutory duties, disciplinary action, vigilance inquiry, compliance certification, and redressal of grievances. Such matters do not fall within the scope of "information" under the RTI Act unless supported by existing records.
The Commission observes that under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, a public authority is mandated to transfer an application if the information sought is held by or more closely connected with the functions of another public authority. In all three cases, the transfers were made within the statutory framework and there is nothing on record to show that the transfers were malafide or intended to obstruct access to information.
Page 9 of 13The Commission observed that the present complaints were filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 whereas prayer is made for providing information. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." Bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOS 10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the Complainant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor ((1876) 1 Ch. D. 426) that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden.
The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. The Commission is of the view that the relief sought by the complainant cannot be provided under section 18 of the RTI Act.
Furthermore, the records of the cases do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the respondents, therefore, the Commission observes that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint cases.
The Commission further observes from the perusal of records that 567 Second Appeals/ Complaint cases of the Complainant/appellant against Page 10 of 13 the same and different Public Authorities had already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. It is evident from the perusal of records that apart from these 3 complaints, 94 Second Appeals/ Complaint cases of the present complainant are pending before this bench against the same and different Public Authorities.
The Complainant had filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in his RTI Applications apparently to pressure the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The approach of the Complainant is against the spirit of the RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Appeals by the same person. Moreover, the Commission would like to place its reliance to the OM No. 1/18/2011-IR of DoP&T dated 16.09.2011 and the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011 wherein it was held as under:
"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 public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and 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 public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and 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 public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties.."Page 11 of 13
The act of the Complainant/Appellant in filing a series of RTI applications and inundating the CPIOs with numerous RTI queries is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act and is hereby admonished.
Further, the Complainant was not present during the hearing before the Commission, neither he has filed any written submissions nor any re- joinder to the written submissions of the respondents, which indicates that he is not interested in pursuing the matter further.
With above observations and directions, the instant Complaints are disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (संजीवकुमारिजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) date: 23.02.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Col. Prabhat Kumar) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1.The CPIO, US, MOUHA, Smart City-1, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
2. The CPIO, Faridabad Smart City Ltd., Municipal Corporation Faridabad, BK Chowk, Faridabad-121001 Page 12 of 13
3. The CPIO, Gandhinagar Smart City Development Ltd., Sec-16, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382016.
4. The CPIO, Smart City Ahmedabad Development Ltd., Opp. Divan Ballubhai School, Nr. Sanskar Kendra, Paldi, Ahmedabad-3800
5. Shri Naresh Kadyan Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)