Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Ministry Of Road Transport & Highways on 7 April, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
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/MORTH/C/2024/619905
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
Date of Hearing : 03.04.2025
Date of Decision : 03.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.03.2024
PIO replied on : 21.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 26.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 08.04.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 10.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Community Policing as scouting in good faith for Camels, domesticated by Indian Army, and paramilitary Forces, like BSF, in the presence of Brand Ambassador Viyana Berwal: Supply complete details, question replies before Indian Parliaments, related to CAMEL transportation, without rules and regulations, related to:
1. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
2. Copies of all communications received and made.
3. Camel Van, proposal and approval with present status.
4. Copies of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of animals) Rules, 2020, as claimed by public servant, holding berth in BSF as Commandant at Jodhpur, along with the approval - gazette Notification of the Government.
5. Copies of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Target of animal) Rules, 2020, as claimed by public servant, holding berth in BSF as Commandant at Jodhpur, along with the approval - gazette Notification of the Government.
Page 1
6. Camels are being transported by a private goods transport vehicle, supply complete list and numbers of vehicles, along with copy of tender being public document.
7. Complete details about NOC Pre-transport permit obtained by BSF, from RTORTA NHAI- AWBI NRCC and Rajasthan State Animal Husbandry Department, as per Rule 96 of the Transportation of Animals Rules, 1978, amended in 2001 and 2009.
8. Copies of exemptions obtained by BSF, to breach public trust, violating the Delhi Police Standing order No. 31 of 2022.
9. Copies of exemptions obtained by BSF, to breach public trust, committing contempt of court of law: CWP No. 309 of 2003, upheld 5 freedoms for animals, 27-8-2013 mechanism endorsed by a Supreme Court.
10. Copies of exemptions obtained by BSF, to breach public trust, contempt of judicial advisory, endorsed but Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court, related 5 freedoms for animals.
11. Leg tied loading and unloading, travelling as well, which is claimed by a BSF, in their communications, and questions and replies in Parliament, supply copies with present status of permission granted under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Husbandry Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2023.
12. Copies of strict compliance of oath sworn in by all veterinarians, as per Rule 3 of Veterinary Council of India Standard of Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics, for Veterinary Practitioners Regulations, 1992.
13. Strict compliance of the Rajasthan camel (prohibition of slaughter & regulation of temporary migration or export) act, 2015.
14. Restoration of 5 freedoms for camels, keeping in view, section 33 of the BSF Act, 1968 and all exceptions obtained, applied and granted, along with copies of State Animal Welfare Board, Delhi and Rajasthan."
The CPIO, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways vide letter dated 21.03.2024 replied as under:-
2. "The undersigned is dealing with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (CMVRs). Both MV Act and CMVRs are available on this Ministry's official website:
www.morth.nic.in. With reference to your queries, it is stated that Special requirements of motor vehicles transporting livestock are contained in Rule 125E of CMVRs and as per Rule 125E(4): The RTO shall issue special licences for the motor vehicles meant for carrying animals on the basis of vehicles modified in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Rule (2). This Ministry's notification G.S.R. 904(E), dated 23.09.2016 (copy available on this Ministry's official website): In the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in rule 125E, (i) for sub-rule (3), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely: " (3) No motor vehicles meant for carrying animals shall be permitted to carry any other goods, while carrying Page 2 animals."; (ii) after sub- rule (4), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: "Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to a vehicle carrying livestock belonging to farmers". Implementation of provisions of CMVRs and MV Act comes under the purview of State Transport Departments. You may, therefore, write to the notified Public Authority in the Transport Department of the State/UT concerned for further requisite information."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 26.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2024 stated as under:-
"2. I have gone through the appeal carefully and it appears that the applicant has received the reply of the RTI applications (MORTH/R/T/24/00196 with dated 20/03/2024) sent by the Public Information Officer (Under Secretary (MVL) and CPIO) vide this Ministry's letter No. RT-11016/01/2024-MVL with dated 21/03/2024, wherein, it has been replied as per the information available with the CPIO.
3. Further, as per observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court on RTI Act, 2005 (Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011), only such information can be supplied which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicant; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions, which has been rightfully done by CPIO. Hence, the appeal is hereby disposed off."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 28.03.2025 has been received from the CPIO, MoRTH, MVL Section and same has been taken on record for perusal.
"...Please refer to CIC Notice No. CIC/MORTH/C/2024/619905 dated 06th March, 2025 on the above subject and submits following facts for kind consideration:
2. The RTI applications of Shri Naresh Kadyan, Delhi was received in this office vide Regn. No. MORTH/R/T/24/00196, dated 20th March, 2024 sought information regarding "Transportation of animals' (Annexure-I). The RTI application was replied by the CPIO vide letter No.RT-11016/01/2024-
MVL, dated 21st March, 2024 as per available information with the CPIO (Annexure-II). Thereafter, the appellant filed First Appeal with Regn. No. MORTH/A/E/24/00105 of the applicant with dated 20th March, 2024 (Annexure-III) which was disposed by the first Appellate Authority, vide letter no.
Page 3 RT-11016/02/2024-MVL dated 8th April, 2024 (Annexure-IV). Not satisfied with the replies of RTI, the applicant has now preferred a 2nd Appeal before Hon'ble CIC, hearing of which has been scheduled on dated 3rd April, 2025 at 12:05 P.M.
3. Apart from the above mentioned facts, the following points are also submitted for kind consideration:
The appellant has sought detail guidelines, SOP, circulars, advisories, prototype of vehicles for transportation of animals. The CPIO deals with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and vide letter dated 28.11.2022 had already provided a detailed reply to the applicant stating therein that: Special requirements of motor vehicles transporting livestock are contained in Rule 125E of CMVR. As per sub-rule (2) of rule 125E- The motor vehicles for carrying animals shall have permanent partitions in the body of the vehicle so that animals are carried individually in each partition.
As per sub-rule (3) of rule 125E- No motor vehicles meant for carrying animals shall be permitted to carry any other goods, while carrying animals.
As per sub-rule (4) Rule 125E: The Regional Transport Officer (RTO) shall issue special licences for the motor vehicles meant for carrying animals on the basis of vehicles modified in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Rule (2).
Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to a vehicle or agriculture tractor and its trailers, used for local transport of maximum two milch animals along with their calves. Implementation of provisions contained in Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made under Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 comes under the purview of concerned State/UT.
4. It may be seen that the information sought by the applicant has been replied as per available information with the CPIO. Hence, keeping in view of this and also taking into consideration the facts mentioned above, it is requested that the instant appeal may please be treated as disposed..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. S.K. Singh, US, MVL Section, MoRTH- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the RTI Applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Page 4 Decision:
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 can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on 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:
"...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."
Page 5 "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.
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 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 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)