Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs National Research Centre On Camel ... on 20 March, 2025
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/NRCCM/C/2024/614657
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Research Centre on Camel (ICAR), ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bikaner
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 :29.01.2024
PIO replied on :21.02.2024
First Appeal filed on :Nil
First Appellate Order on :- -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on :09.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"ICAR-National Research Centre on Camel, Bikaner, who is responsible for mishandling the issue of camel transportation, during the hearing of WP(C) No. 2045 of 2022 before the Delhi High Court, it was placed on record: National Research Centre of Camels, Bikaner, Rajasthan and a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been provided to transport the camels and that the BSF is following those SOPs.
Supply the copies of all communications and replies along with concerned file notings, rules and regulations, related to all exemptions and certificate issued, compliance of 5 freedoms for animals, related to all animals including BSF camels.
Supply the copies of authority, as claim, NRCC frame SOP for Camel Transportation, without pre-transport permit, and non-approved vehicle to transport Camels, owned by BSF.
Supply the copies of exemptions to BSF, violating section 33 of BSF Act, 1968, read with the orders passed by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court of India, along with animal transportation mechanism as adopted by AWBI.Page 1 of 3
Supply all copies of compliance and exemptions to BSF Camels, related to: Declaration of Camels as the state animal of Rajasthan in 2014, the government came out with the Rajasthan Camel (Prohibition of Slaughter and Prohibition of Temporary Migration or Export Regulations) Act in 2015 to prohibit its temporary migration out of Rajasthan. Supply all copies of communications between NRCC and AWBI - BSF. Supply strict compliance of Rule 3 of the 5. Veterinary Council of India Standard of Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics, for Veterinary Practitioners Regulations, 1992."
The CPIO, National Research Centre on Camel (ICAR) vide letter dated 21.02.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply: The information sought from ICAR-NRCC, Bikaner by the appellant is found the same as queried vide CPGRAM Portal (Registration No. DOARE/E/2022/00697 dated 27.07.2022.
In this regard, the reply has already been communicated vide letter No. NRCC/CPGRAM-Grievance/06/2015 dated 02.08.2022. Further, with regard to present RTI Application registration No. NRCCM/R/E/24/00001 dated 29.01.2024, it is to submit that the issues are related to transportation of Camel by the BSF wherein ICAR-NRCC has no bearing on the subject."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
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: Shri Dinesh Munjal - Chief Technical Officer was present for hearing through video conference Respondent alone was present during hearing and stated that appropriate response had been duly furnished to the Complainant in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, based on available records.
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 in advance. Since the Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under 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 Page 2 of 3 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)