Baby Viyana Berwal vs National Research Centre On Yak (Icar) on 20 March, 2025

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Baby Viyana Berwal vs National Research Centre On Yak (Icar) on 20 March, 2025

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                     के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NRCYK/C/2024/648283

Ms. Baby Viyana Berwal                                     निकायतकताग /Complainant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, National Research Centre On Yak (ICAR),               ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh

Date of Hearing                          :   18.03.2025
Date of Decision                         :   18.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on                 :    12.01.2024
PIO replied on                           :    05.03.2024
First Appeal filed on                    :    12.02.2024
First Appellate Order on                 :    17.10.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on          :    Nil

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

1. "Regulate Mithun and Yak, shifting in approved vehicles, and nose roping

2. Issue display advisory under section 9(k) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, for educational purposes, related to Mithun and Yak, restoring their five freedoms, installing animal scanner at toll plaza.

3. As per section 27(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, display of Mithun and Yak, is exempted, being educational purposes, whereas, anatomy of body structure, as shape and size, cannot be treated as performing animals.

4. Clarify terms and conditions, for survival outside of their natural habitat, so we can introduce around National Capital Region, limitation of temperature as well.

5. Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds, along with OIPA: Indian People for Animals, under strict observations of Master Trainer in Animal Welfare to Govt. of India, propose to introduce, MoU has been signed with many establishments, for display of Yak and Mithun, for educational purpose, as Fish Tunnel."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.02.2024.

Page 1 of 3

The CPIO, National Research Centre on Yak (ICAR) vide letter dated 05.03.2024 replied as under:-

Reply:- Supply all copies of communication along with complete details of IAEC, action taken on every complaint received related to:

1. Regulate Yak, shifting in approved vehicles and nose roping.

 Not applicable

2. Issue display advisory under section 9(k) of the prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, for educational purposes, related to yak, restoring their five freedoms, installing animal scanner at toll plaza.

 Contact concerned authorities

3. As per section 27(b) of prevention of Cruelty to Animals Acts, 1960, display of yak, is exempted, being educational purposes, whereas, anatomy of body structure, as shape and size, cannot be treated as performing animals.

 Contact concerned authorities

4. Clarify terms and condition, for survival outside of their natural habitat, so we can introduce around National Capital Region, limitation of temperature as well.

 Yaks are found at an altitude of 3000-6000 m above msl with temperature not going beyond 13-15 C all year round. Yaks can tolerate temperature upto-40 c. They can tolerate low oxygen content of the air and high solar radiation.

5. Scouts and guides for animals and birds, along with OIPA: Indian People for Animals, under strict observations of master trainer in animal Welfare to govt. Of India, purpose to introduce, MoU has been signed either many establishment, for display of yak and Mithun, for educational purpose as Fish tunnel.

 Contact concerned authorities."

In regard to her first appeal, the FAA vide order dated 17.10.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Complainant: Not present Respondent: None None present during hearing.

Decision:

Perusal of the records of the case reveal that appropriate response has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Both parties remained absent during the hearing despite service of notice in advance.

Decision:

Perusal of the records of the case reveal that appropriate response has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant has chosen not to attend the hearing despite service of hearing notice. Since the Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under Page 2 of 3 Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent had sent the information, following due course of law as envisaged under the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:

"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...."

In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and neither any case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required.

The case is disposed off 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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission