Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 27 January, 2026
CIC/MOENF/C/2024/616166
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/MOENF/C/2024/616166
Naresh Kadyan ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: M/o. Environ., Forests &
Climate Change, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 04.02.2023 FA : 03.03.2023 Complaint : Nil.
CPIO : 17.02.2023 FAO : 06.03.2023 Hearing : 22.01.2026
Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Supply complete details, point wise compliance of Supreme Court order dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007, with following directions, 1 to 12, applicable on the animals, reptiles, Insects, Birds, Indian - exotic species of animals, in the captivity of all Rescue Centres, Zoo - approved establishments, of CZA, AWBI, NTCA, NBA etc. or not, confirm in writing, as these directions were all to comply with Page 1 of 8 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/616166 (1) We declare that the rights guaranteed to the Bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or curtailed, except under Sections 11(3) and 28 of PCA Act.
(2) We declare that the five freedoms, referred to earlier be read into Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act, be protected and safeguarded by the States, Central Government, Union Territories, MOEF and AWBI.
(3) AWBI and Governments are directed to take appropriate steps to see that the persons-in-charge or care of animals, take reasonable measures to ensure the well- being of animals.
(4) AWBI and Governments are directed to take steps to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on the animals, since their rights have been statutorily protected under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act.
(5) AWBI is also directed to ensure that the provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii) scrupulously followed, meaning thereby, that the person in-charge or care of the animal shall not incite any animal to fight against a human being or another animal. (6) AWBI and the Governments would also see that even in cases where Section 11(3) is involved, the animals be not put to unnecessary pain and suffering and adequate and scientific methods be adopted to achieve the same..etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"information sought is not clear. Your application has already been forwarded the concerned Departments for further information."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 03.03.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 06.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 2 of 8CIC/MOENF/C/2024/616166
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Vivek Goel, Data Processing Assistant, CZA, Ms. Ritika Prasad, law officer, CZA, Shri Pawan Jeph, AIGF, NTCA, Ms. Prachi Jain, AWBI, - participated in the hearing.
5. Ms. Ritika Prasad, law officer Central Zoo Authority, submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Complainant. She stated that the PIO vide reply dated 27.03.2023 stated as under:
"The desired information does not pertain to Central Zoo Authority and is hereby transferred to the Public Information Officer Animal Welfare Board of India under Section 6(3) of RTI Act with a request to provide the requisite information, as available, directly to the applicant."
6. Further, in response to First Appeal filed by the Complainant, the FAA, CZA vide order dated 26.07.2023 stated as under:
"2. The appellant preferred an RTI application no. CZAUT/R/X/23/00010 dated 17.02.2023 seeking multifarious information from the Central Public Information Officer, Central Zoo Authority ("CPIO"). 3. The CPIO in his reply dated 27.03.2023 observed that the information sought by the appellant does not pertain to this public authority and transferred the RTI application to the Assistant Secretary & CPIO, Animal Welfare Board of India. The appellant is dissatisfied with the CP1O's response, hence the instant appeal. 4. I have perused the RTI application, the response of CPIO, and other material available on record. 5. On perusal of the RTI application, it is evident that the appellant in his application has sought information regarding 3 other public authorities apart from this office i.e. - the Animal Welfare Board of India, the Page 3 of 8 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/616166 National Tiger Conservation Authority, and the National Biodiversity Authority, Whereas, the CPIO in his response, has transferred the RTI application only to the PIO Animal Welfare Board of India thereby furnishing an incomplete response. The RTI ought to have been transferred to the PIOs of the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the National Biodiversity Authority as well. 6. Furthermore, even though the information sought by the appellant does not strictly come within the purview of the Central Zoo Authority, the CPIO could have shared copies of the Annual Reports of Central Zoo Authority which contains an exhaustive account of all the steps taken by CZA to ensure welfare of animals housed in zoos. 7. Keeping in view the above observations, the CPIO is hereby directed to transfer the RTI application to the Public Information Officer of the National Tiger Conservation Authority, and the National Biodiversity Authority and also furnish copies of the Annual Reports of the Central Zoo Authority free of cost within 10 days from the date of this order under intimation to the undersigned. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the first appeal is disposed of."
7. In compliance of the order of FAA, the PIO, CZA furnished the documents vide email dated 21.01.2026. A written submission in this regard has been received from Vivek Goel, Data Processing Assistant, and same has been taken on record for pursual. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..8. That the Central Zoo Authority remains fully committed to fulfilling its obligations under the RTI Act, 2005, and ensuring that all RTI applications are addressed promptly and transparently. Therefore, the undersigned has complied with the order dated 26.07.2023 of the Appellate Authority by sending the information via email dated 21.01.2026 (attached as ANNEXURE 1). The undersigned is prepared to provide any further clarification or documents as may be required by the Hon'ble Commission to resolve this matter..."Page 4 of 8
CIC/MOENF/C/2024/616166
8. PIO, National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) stated that as per the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, the National Tiger Conservation Authority is mandated for conservation of tigers and associated fauna in free ranging conditions. He averred that the information sought by the Complainant pertains to animals in captivity and not related to NTCA. A written submission dated 14.01.2026 in this regard has been received from Shri Hemant Singh, CPIO, NTCA and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..1. The RTI application vide registration no. NTCA/R/E/23/00007 was received online on 10.02.2023. This CPIO replied to the RTI of the applicant within stipulated time period as the information sought was related to order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to the rights of animals in captivity and was not related to the National Tiger Conservation Authority, which is as per Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 is mandated for conservation of tigers and associated fauna in free ranging conditions.
2. Subsequently, the appellant has registered the online appeal vide registration no. NTCA/A/E/23/00014 RTI dated 09.03.2023 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA replied to the appeal on 10.03.2023 of the appellant in accordance with law and first appellate Authority also referred the reply of the CPIO.
3. It is submitted that, vide the aforesaid RTI the applicant sought relevant para reproduced here "Supply complete details, point wise compliance of Supreme Court order dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007, with following directions, 1 to 12, applicable on the animals, reptiles, Insects, Birds, Indian exotic species of animals, in the captivity of all Rescue Centres, Zoo approved establishments, of CZA, AWBI, NTCA, NBA etc.". It is being reiterated, that as per the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, the National Tiger Conservation Authority is mandated for conservation of tigers and associated fauna in free ranging conditions and information sought pertains to animals in captivity and Page 5 of 8 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/616166 not related to NTCA, accordingly the RTI and subsequent appeal were replied..."
9. Ms. Prachi Jain, PIO, AWBI stated that reply as per the official records available in their records has been duly provided to the Complainant. She placed on record a written submission dated 13.01.2026 stating that the PIO had earlier furnished a reply to the Complainant in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
10. 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.
11. 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 Page 6 of 8 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/616166 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...."
12. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
13. 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. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Page 7 of 8 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/616166 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO under RTI, Under Secretary & CPIO, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, 6th Floor, Prithvi Marg, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. CPIO under RTI, Section Officer-(RTI), Animal Welfare Board of India (M/o.
Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying), 42 KM Stone, Delhi-Agra Highway, NH-2, Village-Seekri, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad-121004 (Haryana).
3. CPIO under RTI, Section Officer-(RTI Section), Central Zoo Authority (M/o. Environ., Forests & Climate Change), B-1 Wing, 6th Floor, Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
4. Naresh Kadyan Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)