Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Directorate General Of Foreign Trade on 4 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DGOFT/A/2021/623272
Naresh Kadyan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
1. Directorate General of Foreign Trade,
RTI Cell, Export Cell Non-SCOMET,
Udyog Bhawan, H-wing, Gate, no.2,
Maulana Azad Rd, New Delhi-110011
2. National Biodiversity Authority,
RTI Cell, TCIL Bio Park, 5th Floor,
CSIR Road, Taramani, Chennai-600113,
Tamil Nadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent (s)
Date of Hearing : 02/01/2023
Date of Decision : 02/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/12/2019
CPIO replied on : 06/02/2020
First appeal filed on : 01/06/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 10/06/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2019 seeking the following information:
"1.Compete list, details about the livestock, animal & birds, allowed to be exporting outside India, to which Country.1
2.Expalin complete details, species wise, their age & sex with values of exported live animals including livestock & poultry.
3. Copies of permission issued by State Biodiversity Board along with National Biodiversity Authority with Biodiversity Management Committees, their status in the Peoples Biodiversity Registers.
4. Copies of profit-sharing deposit as per Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014.
5. Responsible officials ignored mandatory provisions, Mrs. Sukanya Berwal, Commissioner of Education, Scouts & Guides for Animals & Birds offer her tireless services to provide training on animal welfare to all concerned without any personal gain, for a cause to safe guard flora & fauna."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 26.02.2020 with the following remarks -
"The request has been forwarded to concerned department with an advice that they will reply to the applicant directly."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2021. FAA's order dated 10.06.2021, disposed of the first appeal stating as under:
The CPIO has already transferred the request for RTI to the concerned department for reply directly to the applicant. There is no further information available with DGFT and I agree with the response of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"....India is a party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity signed at Rio de Janeiro on the 5th day of June, 1992, the said Convention came into force on the 29th December, 1993, the said Convention reaffirms the sovereign rights of the States over their biological resources but No permission was granted under this law by the National Authority along with the Biodiversity Management Committee, whereas violations of these legal provisions are cognizable and non bailable offenses, besides it evidences were also destroyed being live animals were allowed to export outside India. Live animals export at full swing, without assessing surplus census of rich species, spoiling biodiversity, violating the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, without sharing 2 profit with Biodiversity Management Committees, ignoring Peoples Biodiversity Registers, because:
1. As per AWBI Advisory on Export of livestock, all legal provisions were not followed, ignored for personal gain and profit, besides it these animals were badly abused while shifting in non ISI specified goods transport vehicles, breaching section 51 A (g) of Indian Constitution and five freedoms of animals, which were upheld by the Court of law, specified the responsibilities of custodians of animals as per section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
2. No pre transport permits were obtained being mandatory provisions as per section 96 of Cattle Transport Rules, 1978 Hence, Ban live animal export at once, cancelling all permits and permissions to safeguard the Indian biodiversity, recalling back the live animals already exported from outside India. Hence, supply me all communication made & received with concerned noting sheets, since last 15 years along with information sought for."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent no. 1: Pratibha Kumari, Dy. DGFT & CPIO present through audio- conference.
Respondent no. 2: J. Narayanan, Administrative Officer & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. He further expressed his astonishment to the fact that there is an alleged breach of trust committed by the Respondent organization in not making the desired information public to maintain the probity in the system.
Respondent no. 1 submitted that the information sought by the Appellant was not maintained by their office; therefore, the instant RTI Application has been forwarded to the Respondent no. 2 to provide the information directly to the Appellant.
The Respondent no. 2 submitted that the information sought by the Appellant is vague and unspecific in nature; yet relevant available information as could be culled out from their office records more specifically to point no. 4 has been provided to him earlier in compliance with CIC's order pertaining to similar Second Appeal of the Appellant vide file no. CIC/NBDAT/A/2020/62192 dated 21.01.2022, on 28.02.2022. Relevant extract of reply dated 28.02.2022 is reproduced below -3
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of the instant RTI Application that the information sought by the Appellant is unspecific and indeterminate which concededly does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal 4 provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get 5 copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications provided by the CPIOs' during hearing is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the foregoing, no scope of further action is warranted in the matter.6
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the attention of the CPIOs' is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add....."
In view of the above said point, the CPIOs/Respondents no. 1 & 2 herein are hereby directed to provide a copy of their latest written submissions free of cost to the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7