Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 27 January, 2026
CIC/MOENF/C/2024/610538
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/2024/610538
Naresh Kadyan ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: M/o. Environ., Forests &
Climate Change, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 03.01.2024 FA : 23.01.2024 Complaint : Nil.
CPIO : 23.01.2024 FAO : 22.02.2024 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:
1. Exchange of animals, since beginning till date along with present status.
2. A registered establishment under the Society Registration Act, 1860, owned by a government, sublet - handed over-transfer their work and premises to another private establishment-trust or Society, True or false.Page 1 of 10
CIC/MOENF/C/2024/610538
3. Adoption scheme of Zoo, applicable of the Circuses, true or false, supply complete list of adopted animals, since beginning till date, with their present status.
4. Cheetah being exotic species, introduced in India, list species of Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) covered under the protection cover at serial No. 37 of the WP Act, 1972, keeping in view non-existence in India.
2. The CPIO, NTCA replied vide letter dated 23.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The said information is not available with this Authority. Further, the application is transferred to the CPIO, Central Zoo Authority, MoEF&CC, New Delhi, under rule 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..The RTI Appeal registered in this Ministry vide registration No. NTCAD/A/E/24/00002 dated 23.01.2024 were perused. I have gone through the details of the appeal filed vide registration mentioned above. It is found that while replying to RTI application (Registration No. NTCAD/R/E/23/00001 dated 03.01.2024) vide letter F.No. 10- 1/2024- NTCA dated 23.01.2024, the CPIO, NTCA has informed that the said information is not available with this Authority. Further, the application is transferred to the CPIO, Central Zoo Authority, MoEF&CC, New Delhi, under rule 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005. 2. The information solicited by the applicant in respect of S. No.5(1) of the original application and appeal under RTI Act, 2005, in respect of "present status of Cheetah is available in public domain at the following URL : (i) Page 2 of 10 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/610538 https://ntca.gov.in/assets/uploads/Reports/Others/Project_Cheetah_Annual_ Report.pdf . In view of above, the application is disposed of accordingly..."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil.
5. PIO, Central Zoo Authority vide letter dated 21.01.2026 stated as under:
1. Information desired regarding exchange of animals is available as part of Annual Reports of CZA on official website at the link https://cza.nic.in/
2. Information desired is not available Information desired is not available.
3. Information desired is not available.
4. Information desired is not available Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Shri Vivek Goel, Data Processing Assistant, CZA, Ms. Ritika Prasad, law officer, CZA, Shri Pawan Jeph, AIGF, NTCA, - participated in the hearing.
6. Shri Pawan Jeph, AIGF, NTCA stated that the information sought relates to Central Zoo Authority and accordingly the instant RTI Application was transferred to CZA under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. A written submission dated 12.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and the 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/24/00001 was received online on 03.01.2024. Vide letter dated 23.01.2024 the RTI was disposed and also transferred to the CPIO, Central Zoo Authority, MoEF&CC, New Delhi, under rule 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for providing the desired information (Annexure-I).Page 3 of 10
CIC/MOENF/C/2024/610538
2. Subsequently, the appellant has registered the online RTI Appeal dated 23.01.2024 vide registration no. NTCA/A/E/24/00002 before the first appellate authority. Vide letter dated 22.02.2024 the first appellate authority disposed of the appeal of the appellant in accordance with law and provided the relevant information to the appellant. (Annexure -II) .
3. It is pertinent to mention that, the information sought by the applicant vide the RTI was basically related to Section 38A to 38J of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which in the act itself are mandated to be dealt by the Central Zoo Authority and keeping in view relevant section of the RTI was duly forwarded to the CPIO, Central Zoo Authority, New Delhi, under rule 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
4.Further, during the first appeal the appellant has raised that "Exotic species Cheetah introduced without cover, NTCA concealed information, why? ". In this regards it is again reiterated that the information sought by the applicant by the RTI was basically related to Section 38A to 38J of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which in the Act itself are mandated to be dealt by the Central Zoo Authority and are related to animals in captivity. The National Tiger Conservation Authority under ambit of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is mandated for conservation of tigers and associated fauna in free ranging conditions. Further, the introduction of cheetah in India is in free ranging conditions and has been done as per the directions Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
5. So in the first appeal again the appellant reiterated same Sections of Wildlife Protection) Act, 1972 i.e. 38A to 38J and sought about information translocation of cheetah which is technically related to captive animals was not related to NTCA, Despite this the appellate authority in a good gesture provided the information related to translocation of free ranging cheetahs to India via link (https://ntca.gov.in/assets/uploads/Reports/Others/Project_Cheetah_Annual_Repo rt.pdf ) to the appellant (also available in public domain).
6. It is pertinent to mention that the said link is functional and other information related to translocation of cheetahs to India are also placed in the public domain Page 4 of 10 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/610538 by the NTCA to maintain the transparency in the project and same information also can seen on public domain at the following links: (i) https://ntca.gov.in/project-cheetah-kuno-np/#project-cheetah (iii) https://ntca.gov.in/project-cheetah-kuno-np/#cheetah-reports. In view of the above it is most respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Commission that the appellant sought vague information for which credible information was provided and the present appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the aforementioned grounds..."
7. Ms. Ritika Prasad, law officer, CZA, stated that the relevant information has been furnished to the Complainant. She averred that point-wise reply has been provided to the Complainant. A written submission has been received from Shri Vivek Goel, Data Processing Assistant, and same has bene taken on record. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
1. At the outset, it is humbly submitted that there was no mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the then CPIO (Shri T. Ajay Kumar) to obstruct the Complainant's right or refuse him information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. On 03.01.2024, the Complainant's RTI no NTCAD/R/E/24/00001 dated 03/01/2024 was received on RTI Request & Appeal Management Information System (RTI-MIS) in the O/o National Tiger Conservation Authority wherein information was sought and the same is reproduced below: -
"From the desk of Brand Ambassador Viyana Berwal, under observation of Smt. Sukanya Berwal, Commissioner of Education, Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds, along with OIPA: Indian People for Animals. As per CHAPTER IVA of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. 1972: CENTRAL Z00 AUTHORITY AND RECOGNITION OF ZOOS SECTIONS - Section 38A: Constitution of Central 200 Authority, 38B: Term of office and conditions of service of Chairperson and Page 5 of 10 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/610538 members, etc. 38C: Functions of the Authority. 38D: Procedure to be regulated by the Authority. 38E Grants and loans to Authority and Constitution of Fund. 38F: Annual report. 38G: Annual report and audit report to be laid before Parliament. 38H: Recognition of zoos. 381: Acquisition of animals by a zoo. 38J: Prohibition of teasing, etc.., in a zoo. Supply complete list, details point wise as stated above 38A to 3, along with:
1. Exchange of animals, since beginning till date along with present status.
2. A registered establishment under the Society Registration Act, 1860, owned by a government, sublet -handed over -transler their work and premises to another not available with this private establishment - trust or Society, True or false..
3. Adoption scheme of 200, applicable of the Circuses, true or false, supply application is transterred to complete list of adopted animals, since beginning till date, with their present status.
4. Cheetah being exotic species, introduced in India, list species of Cheetah Delhi, under rule 6(3) of (Acinony jubatus) covered under the protection cover at serial No. 37 of the WP Act. 1972, keeping in view non-existence in India."
3. On 23.01.2024, the then CPIO of National Tiger Conservation Authority disposed off the aforesaid RTI by giving the following reply: -
"The said information is not available with this Authority. Further, the application is transferred to the CPIO, Central Zoo Authority, MoEF&CC, New Delhi, under rule 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005"
4. On 22.02.2024 the RTI Appeal registered in the Ministry vide registration No. NTCAD/A/E/24/00002 was disposed off by the then Appellate Authority of the National Tiger Conservation Authority by giving the following response: - "The RTI Appeal registered in this Page 6 of 10 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/610538 Ministry vide registration No. NTCAD/A/E/24/00002 dated 23.01.2024 were perused. I have gone through the details of the appeal filed vide registration mentioned above. It is found that while replying to RTI application (Registration No. NTCAD/R/E/23/00001 dated 03.01.2024) vide letter F.No. 10-1/2024-NTCA dated 23.01.2024, the CPIO, NTCA has informed that the said information is not available with this Authority. Further, the application is transferred to the CPIO, Central Zoo Authority, MoEF&CC, New Delhi, under rule 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
2. The information solicited by the applicant in respect of S. No.5(1) of the original application and appeal under RTI Act, 2005, in respect of present status of Cheetah is available in public domain at the followingURL:(i)https://ntca.gov.in/assets/uploads/Reports/Others/Proje ctCheetah_Annual_Report.pdf. In view of above, the application is disposed of accordingly."
5. It is apposite to mention at this stage that the then CPIO who also serves as the Evaluation and Monitoring Assistant was swamped with other works of the department and therefore mistakenly missed to respond to RTI bearing NTCAD/R/E/24/00001 transferred vide letter dated 23.01.2024 by the then CPIO of National Tiger Conservation Authority.
6. 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 disposed off the RTI bearing NTCAD/R/E/24/00001 by providing the information (attached as ANNEXURE 1) on 21/01/2026. 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 7 of 10CIC/MOENF/C/2024/610538
7. In light of the above submissions, the undersigned respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly take a lenient view of the delay, considering the bonafide nature of the circumstances and the fact that the response has been provided to the Complainant, and pass appropriate orders as deemed fit..."
Decision:
8. 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.
9. 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 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 Page 8 of 10 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/610538 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...."
10. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
11. 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 9 of 10 CIC/MOENF/C/2024/610538 Addresses of the parties:
1. 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.
2 CPIO under RTI Asst. I.G.F.-(NTCA), National Tiger Conservation Authority (M/o. Environ., Forests & Climate Change), B-1 Wing, 7th Floor, Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. Naresh Kadyan Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)