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/2023/600827
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 : 20.10.2022
PIO replied on : 11.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 06.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1. As per media, the Animal Husbandry Department has said that RKA had no mandate to conduct such an examination.
Whats the issue?
The RKA had announced a national Kamdhenu Gau Vigyan Prachar Prasar Exam to be held on February 25.
1. Reference materials for the exam made a number of unscientific claims, including that the dung of indigenous cows protected against radioactivity, their milk had traces of gold, and that cow slaughter caused earthquakes.
2. The RKA had the backing of the University Grants Commission (UGC), which publicised the examination, causing widespread outrage. About the Rashtriya Kamdhenu Aayog:
Constituted in 2019, the Aayog is a high powered permanent apex advisory body with the mandate to help the Central Government to develop Page 1 appropriate programmes for conservation, sustainable development and genetic upgradation of indigenous breeds of cows.
It comes under the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying.
1. Rashtriya Kamdhenu Aayog, function as an integral part of Rashtriya Gokul Mission.
Functions:
2. Review existing laws, policies as well as suggest measures for optimum economic utilization of cow wealth for enhanced production and productivity, leading to higher farm income and better quality of life for the dairy farmers.
3. Advise and guide the Central Government and State Governments on policy matters concerning conservation, protection, development and welfare of cows and their progeny.
4. Promote schemes to encourage the use of organic manure and recommend suitable measures including incentive schemes for use of dung or urine of cow in organic manure by farmers to minimize the use of chemical fertilizers.
5. Make provisions for solutions to the problems related to abandoned cows in the country by providing technical inputs to Gaushalas, Gosadans and pinjarapoles.
6. Develop pastures or grazing lands and to associate with institutions or other bodies whether private or public, for the purpose of developing pastures and Gauchars.
7. Complete details head wise recurring portion of grant in aid under Shelter, and ambulance services for animals in distress, with ABC."
The CPIO/ vide letter dated 11.11.2022 replied as under:-
"2(i) In this regard, it is stated that the applicant has not sought any information up to point No 6 As far as point No. 7 is concerned, the following is submitted:-
The grants-in-aid provided to the recognized AWOs under the scheme of Shelter and Ambulance service for animals in distress is available on the website of the Animal Welfare Board of India. However information in respect of total Grant in aid for Shelter House and Ambulance Service Scheme from the year 2017-18 to 2021-22 is given below:-
Year Grant in aid for Shelter house Grant in aid for Ambulance
service
2017-18 11025000 1800000
2018-19 19949139 5645278
2019-20 25000000 2639500
2020-21 15000000 4941800
2021-22 15000000 4856650
2 (ii) No separate budget was earmarked for Rashtriya Kamdhenu Aayog in the detailed Demands for Grants during the period of RKA.Expenditure incurred through RGM fund of Cattle and Dairying Development Division of this Dept A Status Note on RKA has also been provided with your RTI Page 2 application No DOAHD/R/E/22/00323 dated 15.10.2022 in respect of all minutes agenda with proceedings and impact."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 04.06.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
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 averments made in their written submission and stated that the point-wise reply has been furnished to the Complainant. They further stated that the first appeal filed by the Complainant has been thoroughly examined by the FAA. They submitted that the queries raised by the Complainant has been addressed by the CPIO comprehensively and no further information is available in their official record in this regard.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
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 Page 3 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."
"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.
Page 4 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 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)