Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 12 January, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/MOENF/A/2020/681449 -UM
Mr. Naresh Kadyan
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change
Room no. A-338, 3rd Floor, Agni-Block
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi-110003
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2022
Date of Decision : 11.01.2022
Date of RTI application 22.05.2020
CPIO's response 13.06.2020
Date of the First Appeal 13.06.2020
First Appellate Authority's response 02.07.2020
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 13 points, as under:-
Page 1 of 3ETC.
The CPIO vide letter dated 13.06.2020, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated
02.07.2020, furnished additional information to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Naresh Kadyan present through AC, Respondent: Mr. K.M. Selvan, Scientist (D) present through AC.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding copies of documents related to Elephant though being wild animal but defined at cattle under Indian Forest Act, Cattle Trespass Act, IPC 429, Delhi Police Act, Mumbai Police Act, Gujarat Police Act. He further stated that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfil his purpose. The Appellant requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory and point-wise information.Page 2 of 3
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 13.06.2020 they had furnished a reply as per the record available in their office. When queried the Respondent submitted information sought on points no. 2, 3 and 11 is concerned with the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) and remaining information is not available in their office.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the current CPIO to collect information on points no. 2, 3 and 11 from the concerned authority and furnish a point-wise and an updated revised reply to the Appellant. If the remaining information is not available in their office then the Respondent should furnish an affidavit to the Commission, explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability of the information, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
In the case of filing wrong affidavit by the CPIO the Appellant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offense of perjury and contempt of the Commission. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) ू नाआयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 11.01.2022 Page 3 of 3