Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Delhi Police on 12 December, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/604139
CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/607605
CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/619439
CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/640238
Shri Naresh Kadyan ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Delhi Police, Prov. & Logistics ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
2. PIO, Delhi Society for Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, Delhi
Date of Hearing : 12.12.2023
Date of Decision : 12.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO Complaint
No. on appeal received on
604139 06.11.2021 29.11.2021 04.12.2021 24.12.2021 20.01.2022
607605 20.11.2021 23.12.2021 20.12.2021 14.01.2022 06.02.2022
619439 01.06.2021 01.07.2021 02.07.2021 27.07.2022 05.04.2022
640238 19.12.2021 18.01.2022 19.01.2022 09.02.2022 26.07.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/604139 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2021 seeking information on following points:-
"..1. Complete list of animal species having by the Indian Army, Police and para Military Forces along with the numbers.
2. Facilities provided by the custodians of above said animals.
3. Rank, pension and retirement benefits for above said animals.
4. Tenure of service along with the recruitment conditions of the animals.
5. Work assignment, to the said animals.
Page 1 of 96. Copies of all circulars, orders passed for the welfare of above said animals.
7. Complete list of retired animals for the last three years from the Indian Army, Police and para Military Forces along with the present status of these serving retired animals.
8. Sheep, goats are being shifted towards Jammu and Kashmir under Indian Army supply cover and these animals are being shifted in goods transport vehicles in double decor position, overcrowded as well, please supply me the copies of circular and orders passed about these animals for their welfare and to minimize unnecessary pain and sufferings.
9. Complete list of camels shifted towards Delhi from Rajasthan by the Border Security Forces, to take part in Republic Day parades, type of vehicles along with the camels shifted in each vehicles, position of camels during their shifting in vehicles, whether in sitting or standing position along with the time consuming during traveling.
10. Copies of circulars, orders passed for retirement benefits to the said animals, policies framed, enforced or under process.
11. Copies of circulars, orders and policies for above said animals welfare.
The CPIO/Provisioning and Logistics, Delhi vide letter dated 29.11.2021 replied as under:-
"1. Total 04 Horses are present in Delhi Police the detail is as under:
RATTAN RETIREMENT PROCEDURE DELHI POLICE
UNDER PROCESS ACEDEMY JHARODA
KALAN
RANGILA -DO- -DO-
ANMOL -DO- -DO-
ROZI -DO- -DO-
2. In this regard, the information is available in 5 pages which can be obtained on payment of Rs. 10/- only through any prescribed mode of payment i.e. Cash, Banker's cheque/Bank Draft or IPO through post or depositing cash with Accountant/Prov. & Logistics on any working day during 10 AM to 5 P.M. against the cost of copying charges @Rs. 2/- per page under the provision of Rule-4 (a) of RTI (Regulation of fee & Cost) Rule- 2005. This office is not answerable for loss of IPO/Draft (fee) in case the same is remitted through post.
3. No rank, pension and retirement benefits have been provided to the horses.
4. Horses are purchased between 3 and 5 years of age, not less than (58") height, capable of carrying 852 kg, and suitable for police work. No purchase is concluded until the horse has been certified as sound and of the prescribed age by a qualified Veterinary Officer. When a horse Page 2 of 9 completes 16 years of age or it becomes unfit for further duties, prior of 16 years the matter may be referred to a Veterinary Officer for an opinion along with its history sheet, as to whether the horse is fit for duties or that it may be considered for condemnation..
5. The mounted Police are employed ordinarily on the following duties:-
(a) Crowd control and dispersal of disorderly mobs, in processions.
(b) To participate in Equestrian Meets held in different parts of the country, to represent Delhi Police.
(c) Ceremonial duties 6,8 to 11. It relates to PHQ. Hence, your RTI application has been transferred to Police Headquarter, Delhi under section 6(3) of RTI Act-2005 for providing the requisite information to you directly.
7. List of retired animals pertain to this unit is enclosed".
The CPIO/DCP, PHQ, Delhi vide letter dated 02.12.2021 intimated the Complainant to collect copies (31 pages) of S.O. No. 32/2010 and circular no. 43/2012 which are closely related to information sought by him vide points 6,8 and 11 of his RTI application, after depositing requisite fee of Rs. 62/- (2/- per page). Thereafter, RTI Cell, PHQ vide letter dated 10.12.2021[5] sent by post photocopies of 31 pages as mentioned in the aforesaid letter dated 02.12.2021.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2021. The FAA/Prov. and Logistics, Delhi vide order dated 24.12.2021 held as under:-
"The undersigned has carefully examined the record available on file and perused the appeal filed by the appellant. It is clear that the information sought by the appellant has already been provided by the PIO/P&L, which is correct as there is only mounts in this unit. The undersigned also found that the PIO/P&L has provided information pertaining to P&L Unit well in time and also transferred to PIO/PHQ to provide the remaining information to the applicant directly in accordance with the provisions laid down in the RTI Act-2005. Hence, the action taken by PIO/P&L is quite in order. No fresh comment is being offered by this office."
The FAA/Addl. DCP/Pers, Police HQs, Delhi vide order dated 28.12.2021 held that available information has been provided to the Complainant by the PIO/PHQ.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Among the multiple documents submitted before the Commission, some are under:-
Page 3 of 9i) Replies dated 18.11.2022, 14.01.2020 etc. from the Animal Welfare Board of India.
ii) A letter dated 10.04.2023 from National Disaster Response Force providing information answering some queries not raised in this RTI application.
iii) - Delhi High Court orders dated 11.10.2023 and 21.11.2022 in the Writ Petition (C) No. 2045/22 in the case of Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds vs. UOI & Ors.
iv) Delhi High Court order dated 15.12.2017 in WP(C) No, 2316/2017 in the case of Saurabh Gupta & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
v) The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has sent a submission dated 12.01.2023 stating that similar information about transportation of animals had been sought by the Complainant vide RTI applications dated 13.12.2019 and 09.07.2010. These two RTI applications had resulted into two second appeals, viz. CIC/MORTH/A/2020/685460 + CIC/MORTH/A/2020/686752 which had been duly adjudicated vide order dated 07.11.2022.
v) submissions have also been received from the Dept. Of Animal Husbandry & Dairying and the Delhi Police Hq.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/607605 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2021 seeking information regarding prevention of cruelty to animals on following points:-
1. Cases registered with the Delhi Police
2. Cases registered with Delhi Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
3. Complete details, list of 2nd offenses, against animals
4. Complete details, list of cases disposed, under trial and investigation, for 2nd offenses, as stated above.
5. Complete list of Infirmaries, declared under section 35 of PCA Act, 1960.
6. Status of membership application of DSPCA, related to Naresh Kadyan.
7. Complete list and details about Cow Hostel, all around India.
8. Complete details about grant in aid, head wise for Cow Hostel.
9. Complete tenure of non-recurring grant in aid, keeping in view depreciations.
The CPIO/Delhi Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vide letter dated 23.12.2021 replied as under:-
Question No. Reply
1. No such information available, as per office records. 2 to 4 Duration for which the information has been sought is not mentioned.
5. Copy enclosed.
6 to 9. No such information available, as per office records.Page 4 of 9
The PIO/Addl. DCP, Dwarka Distt., Delhi vide letter dated 23.12.2021 replied as under:-
1-4. As per record only one case vide FIR No.424/2021, u/s 13 Delhi agriculture Cattle reservation Act 1994, 11 prevention of cruelty to animal Act 1960 &. 429 IPC dated 06.10.2021 at PS Chhawla is found registered in Dwarka District and no person is arrested in this case. The above case is pending investigation.
5, 6, 8 & 9. Requisite information does not relate to this district.
7. As per record, total 05 cow hostel are situated in jurisdiction of Dwarka District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2021. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Dwarka Distt., Delhi vide order dated 14.01.2022 stated as under:-
"The undersigned has carefully considered the application filed by the appellant under RTI Act-2005, information sought by him as well as information provided by the CPIO/Dwarka District and fresh report/comment of the CPIO/DWD on the instant appeal. It has been observed that the admissible requisite information as asked by the appellant under RTI Act-2005 was provided by the CPIO/Dwarka District, New Delhi within stipulated period. Notwithstanding, in view of the instant appeal filed by the appellant and fresh report/comments received from CPIO/DWD, the undersigned find that as per available record, one case vide FIR No. 424/21, PS Chhawla is found registered at PS Chhawla and 05 cow hostel are situated in this district and rest apt-permissible information pertaining to Dwarka District has already been provided to the appellant by the CPIO/DWD. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the capacity of the CPIO to provide information under the Act is limited. 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 CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the appellant. Hence, the application of the appellant has rightly been disposed off by the CPIO/Dwarka District and there is no reason to interfere in the same."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A copy of the Supreme Court order dated 07.05.2014 in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A Nagaraj has been placed on record alongwith written submission of the complainant.
Page 5 of 9(3) CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/619439 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
1. LG Listening Post Nos. 2021007183 lodged with 7 attachments:
2021007260 lodged with 3 attachments as proof, action taken reports with file notings
2. Public grievance portal GNCTD/E/2020/06906: Supply me copies of all letters along with concerned file notings, with Report of Delhi Police :
An enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/Prashant Vihar which revealed that KVIC is having its registered office at Gramodya, 3, IRLA Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai. Hence, the said complaint may be sent to C.P./Mumbai please.
3. All copies of Notices to complainant, asking him to take part with evidences, during enquiry into the matter, which was got conducted through ACP/Prashant Vihar without complainant, when cognizable offense in legal terms was made then reasons for not lodging Zero FIR, Delhi Police very much knows about it.
4. KVIC applied many class including all activities covered under Negative list, with Ivory, submitted affidavits dated 06.06.2018 tender by Jawahar, Director Marketing of KVIC, as per given below at point no.
2:
I say and submit that the applicant company is engaged in the business of manufacturer/merchant/services of the applied goods/services, included in classes 20 for Ivory, confirmed that KVIC has stock of this illegal activity but instead lodging FIR, matter was forwarded to Mumbai, supply me the copies of file notings with letters.
5. As per section 115 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999:- Cognizance of certain offences and the powers of police officer for search and seizure (3): The offences under section 103 or section 104 or section 105 shall be cognizable, supply me status report about special treatment, safeguard the crime, disrespect Community Policing being whistle blower.
6. Gandhigiri details are attached.
The CPIO/Office of Addl. DCP, Rohini District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 01.07.2021 responded as under:-
1. As per reply of complaint Branch/Rohini Distt. no such type complaint has been received to this office 2-6. As per reply of Complaint Branch, the complaint Dy.
No.10094/T/C/DCP/RD dated 17.07.2020 has been sent to SSP/Commissioner Mumbai (the same is enclosed -1PP).
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.07.2021. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Rohini District, Delhi Police vide order dated 27.07.2021 replied as under:-
Page 6 of 9"Contentions put forth by the appellant and report of the PIO/Rohini District, Delhi have been considered. The undersigned has gone through the record placed on file. PIO/RD has provided correct and complete information on his RTI application vide letter dated 1.7.2021. However, on appeal of the appellant, a fresh report has been obtained from ACP/Prashant Vihar and HAC/Rohini District. The reply of ACP/Prashant Vihar is being provided to the appellant [1 PP], and as per report of HAC/RD. Complaint 2021007183, 2021007260 on LG listening Post Portal is not related to Rohini Distt, as regard Complaint No. GNCTD/E/2020/06906 the reply has already been provided to the appellant in RTI vide letter dated 1.7.2021 and there is no change in it. Moreover, to grant relief the reply of RTI is again being provided to him, with this order [2 PPs]. With these observations, the appeal is disposed off."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/640238 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.12.2021 seeking information regarding new Excise Policy, 2021-22 on the following points:-
1. Revenue earned by the Delhi Govt., all around 32 Zones, month wise and area wise, after implementing Policy as attached.
2. Revenue earned by the Delhi Govt., before 16-11-2021 till AAP Party in power.
3. Liquor consume create nuisance, give complete details of FIR lodged with present status.
4. Copy of Cabinet decision along with Group of Ministers of Delhi Govt., related to Excise Policy as attached.
5. Impact on the Society and families, keeping in view as attached Policy.
6. Amount earned under attached Policy and expenditures, month wise in 32 Zones.
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, Dwarka District, Delhi vide letter dated 18.01.2022 replied as under:-
1,2& 4-6. Requisite information does not relate to this district.
3. Requisite information may be treated as nil from this district.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2022. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Dwarka District, Delhi vide order dated 09.02.2022 replied as under:-
"The undersigned has carefully considered the application filed by the appellant under RTI Act-2005, information sought by him as well as Page 7 of 9 information provided by the CPIO/Dwarka District and fresh report/comment of the CPIO/DWD on the instant appeal. It has been observed that the admissible requisite information as asked by the appellant under RTI Act-2005 was provided by the CPIO/Dwarka District, New Delhi within stipulated period. Notwithstanding, in view of the instant appeal filed by the appellant and fresh report/comments received from CPIO/DWD, the undersigned find that Point No. 03: as per available record, no such information is available and same may be treated as nil which apt information pertaining to Dwarka District has already been provided to the appellant by the CPIO/DWD and rest information does not relate to this district. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the capacity of the CPIO to provide information under the Act is limited. 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 CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the appellant. Hence, the application of the appellant has rightly been disposed off by the CPIO/Dwarka District and there is no reason to interfere in the same."
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: Present through video conference.
Respondent: ASI Ravinder Singh, Dwarka District and ASI Kalu Ram and Constable Babu Ram on behalf of Delhi Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Shri Atul Kalia, Insp. Rajesh Kumar and SI Ghanshyam for the Police Hq. ACP Arun Kumar for the Prov. & Logistics were present during the hearing.
Decision Upon perusal of the records of the instant Complaint, it is noted that the subject matter of the case number CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/619439 had already been decided by the erstwhile Bench as case number CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/637071 vide order dated 17.02.2023. Hence fresh adjudication of same issue is barred by operation of the principle of res judicata.
Submissions received from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has sent a submission dated 12.01.2023 also reveal that the subject matter dealt with in the aforementioned case number CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/640238 has already been adjudicated as case numbers CIC/MORTH/A/2020/685460 & CIC/MORTH/A/2020/686752 vide order dated 07.11.2022 by an erstwhile Information Commissioner.Page 8 of 9
Perusal of the aforementioned cases reveals that the complainant has filed a number of cases on similar subject matter. In fact the records of the Commission indicate atleast 315 cases filed by the same applicant, raising similar queries against various public authorities. Considering the fact, that the cases under adjudication herein viz. CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/604139, CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/607605, CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/619439 and CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/640238 are all complaints, the only issue which needs to be adjudicated is whether information has been deliberately denied in the aforementioned cases or not. Records submitted before the Commission by various public authorities in the aforementioned complaints, indicate that adequate information from available records has been provided to the Complainant by the public authorities from time to time, well within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. The Complainant attended the hearing through video conference and reiterated his contentions from his extensive submissions.
Before concluding the case, the Commission wishes 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. ...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."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is not warranted in these four cases viz. CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/604139, CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/607605, CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/ 619439 and CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/640238 since there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent. Hence all the four complaints are disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल साम रया) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 9 of 9