Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Central Zoo Authority, New Delhi on 24 January, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CZAUR/A/2022/600083 -UM
Mr. Naresh Kadyan
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Zoo Authority, B-1 Wing,
6th Floor, Pt. DeendayalAntyodayaBhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.01.2022
Date of Decision : 21.01.2022
Date of RTI application 16.10.2021
CPIO's response 16.11.2021
Date of the First Appeal 16.11.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 14.12.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 05 points, as under:-
Page 1 of 3The CPIO vide letter dated Nil, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 14.12.2021, informed the Appellant that the information was provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 16.11.2021. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present through AC Respondent: Mr R S Rawat finance officer Present through AC The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that he had sought information regarding complete list of recognized Zoo, under section 38-H of the WP Act, 1972, along with the zoo wise, complete list of 5 banned species, under the PCA Act, 1960 along with the all the copies of communications with these Zoo by the CZA and replies received with any relaxation granted, circular, guidelines issued, to display these 5 banned species in the legalized zoo. He alleged that the CPIO replied partly, without forwarding the application as per section 6 of RTI Act and the FAA also concealed actual information which was sought. He referred to a decision of the Supreme Court protecting the 5 freedoms of animals in question. The Respondent in reply submitted that as per the available records they have furnished all the information. He further stated that CZA was not the party in the said court case but still they are trying to implement the directions and measures laid down by the court. The Appellant further alleged that no information has been furnished on point no 2 of the application . The Respondent in reply averred that the said information pertains to the animal welfare board.Page 2 of 3
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to collect the information from the concerned authority on point no
2 of the RTI Application and furnish it to the Appellant strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) ू नाआयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 21.01.2022 Page 3 of 3