Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 27 December, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOENF/A/2021/622407
Naresh Kadyan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Environment Forest and
Climate Change, Project Elephant Division,
RTI Cell, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/12/2022
Date of Decision : 15/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/04/2021
CPIO replied on : 20/04/2021
First appeal filed on : 20/04/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 03/05/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.04.2021 seeking the following information:
"1. Copies of Action taken on petition as attached, signed by over 1000 persons all around universe.
2. Supply copies of all Advisories, related to Elephant as Cattle, including WCCB - PE Advisory 1
3. Copies of action taken reports on all the Grievances lodged on the PG Portal, supply me complete list of all these grievances raised, including GOVCC/E/2021/00101, MOEAF/E/2021/00349 - PMOPG/E/2021/0152385, related to Elephants as Cattle.
4. These legislation, describing Elephant as cattle, in their definition, which is right or wrong, please clarify:
A). Indian Forest Act B). Cattle Trespass Act C). IPC 429 D). Haryana Police Act E). Punjab Police Act F). Chandigarh Police Act G). Police Act, 1861 applicable in UP H). Gujarat Police Act I). Bombay Police Act J). Delhi Police Act."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 20.04.2021 stating as under:-
Sl. Query Reply
No.
1 Copies of Action taken on petition as attached, The details of the action taken on
signed by over 1000 persons all around petition is enclosed.
universe.
2 Supply copies of all Advisories, related to Information not available in PE
Elephant as Cattle, including WCCB - PE Division. The information is respect of
Advisory WCCB is not available in PE Division,
hence this RTI is forwarded to CPIO,
WCCB with a request to provide
information pertaining to them directly
to you.
3 Copies of action taken reports on all the The copies of the action taken on the
Grievances lodged on the PG Portal, supply me grievances Reg. No.
complete list of all these grievances raised, MOEAF/E/2021/00349 and
including GOVCC/E/2021/00101, PMOPG/E/2021/0152385 is enclosed.
MOEAF/E/2021/00349 - However, information on PG Reg. No.
PMOPG/E/2021/0152385, related to Elephants GOVCC/E/2021/00101 is not available
as Cattle. in PE Division.
4 These legislation, describing Elephant as cattle, The information sought is clarificatory
in their definition, which is right or wrong, in nature, under RTI Act only such
please clarify: information can be supplied under the
A). Indian Forest Act RTI Act which already exists and is held
B). Cattle Trespass Act by the public authority or held under
C). IPC 429 the control of the public authority. The
D). Haryana Police Act Public Information officer is not
2
E). Punjab Police Act supposed to create information or to
F). Chandigarh Police Act interpret information or to solve the
G). Police Act, 1861 applicable in UP problems raised by the applicants or to
H). Gujarat Police Act furnish replies to hypothetical question.
I). Bombay Police Act
J). Delhi Police Act
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.04.2021. FAA's order dated 03.05.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Dr. K M. Selvan, Scientist 'D' & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant vehemently expressed his astonishment to that fact that Elephants which are recognised as National Heritage animals are still unfortunately illegally categorised under the classification of 'Cattles' as per various legislations and in this regard he sought clarifications from the CPIO as to why his suggestions have not been implemented by the Government. However, he is aggrieved by the fact that desired clarifications have not provided to him. He further sought the intervention of the Commission regarding the issue of correct categorization of Elephants and not merging with the classification of Cattles.
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO explained that the issue raised by the Appellant is a policy matter which cannot be decided from the RTI platform. The CPIO further added that the information sought is clarificatory in nature and under RTI Act only such information can be supplied under the RTI Act 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 applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical question. Furthermore, the CPIO added that in a bona fide gesture, in fact , he did attempt to carry out study / research on this issue of categorisation of Elephants and that such policy matters do take time and cannot be sorted out in one go as desired by the Appellant.3
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the contentions of both the parties observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se and in fact, it is about the Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance pertaining to classification of 'Elephants' under the categorisation of 'Cattles' under various Acts and further seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO adequately suffices the queries / clarifications raised in the instant RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Adverting to Appellant's insistence seeking clarifications from the CPIO as to the interpretation of the above mentioned Act regarding Cattle's definition, it shall be noted that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] where in it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:4
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
However, by taking empathetic view in the matter, the Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism .
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5