Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs National Research Centre On Meat (Icar) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NRCMT/C/2022/666985
Shri Naresh Kadyan शिकायतकताा /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
National Research Centre on Meat (ICAR)
Date of Hearing : 03.01.2025
Date of Decision : 03.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.10.2022
PIO replied on : 31.10.2022
First Appeal filed on : 01.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : 21.11.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 19.12.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"As per section 74 of Indian Evidence Act, read with section 4 of RTI Act, all public documents be in public domain but all public servants are enjoying special status in Haryana, eating beef as diet, hence under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, read with RTI, supply complete details and communication with concerned file notings, related to medicinal values of cow beef and veal, supply complete details - list via email, as over 15 years of age, male ox, can be slaughtered and beef products can be consumed as human diet, being medicinal values, transported and carry, as well. Whereas, these cow progeny needs immediate because beef have no medicinal values, no one can slaughter as human diet, besides the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015:
As per section 20(3) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, again adopted the Haryana Prohibition of Page 1 Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972, which is never been implement in Haryana because this fact was exposed through RTI, live presentation was made on 17-11-2020 before the Chairman of the Ayog. A). Neither permits to slaughter cow progeny was granted for medicinal purpose, nor their beef product for human consumption as diet. B). Neither permits to slaughter, unproductive disabled Ox, over 15 years of age, was granted as per legal provisions of Haryana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972.
1. Community Policing as Scouting against beef medicinal values, which is false and fabricated, hurt my religious believes and feelings, hence supply complete details and research results, confirming beef or veal medicinal values.
2. FSSAI do not allow, cow slaughtering on medicinal values, and carry beef products for human consumption as diet.
3. Complete list and details of permission granted to slaughter cow, for their flesh, to eat on medicinal grounds.
4. Complete details about use of Male calves, oxen and bull, along with age to slaughter, for their flesh to eat.
5. Action taken on Naresh Kadyan complaints on this issue, with present status.
6. FSSAI allow Bovine meat as human consumption, their opinion on cow beef and veal required."
The Senior Scientist & CPIO, National Research Centre on Meat (ICAR), Hyderabad vide letter dated 31.10.2022 replied as under:-
Point No. 1:-"ICAR-NRCM has not conducted any research on these aspects and hence no information is available Point No. 2:-Not applicable to ICAR-NRCM Point No. 3:- ICAR-NRCM is a research organization and does not grant any permissions.
Point No. 4:- ICAR-NRCM has not conducted any research on these aspects and hence no information is available Point No. 5:- Not applicable to ICAR-NRCM Point No. 6:- Not applicable to ICAR-NRCM."
According to the principle of RTI, once a certain information is already available in the public domain accessible to citizens, that information cannot be said to be "held" or "under the control" of the public authority and hence such information is beyond the RTI act.
Further, the public authority can only provide the information as is available with it and does not require to compile the information."
Page 2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 01.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 21.11.2022 stated as under:-
"The Appeal of Sh. Naresh Kadyan (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) has been received under section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant did not mention the reason for his appeal.
It is brought to the notice of Appellant that the ICAR-NRC on Meat is a research organization under the governance of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). ICAR-NRCM is not a regulatory authority and is not entitled to grant permissions for slaughter or issue policies.
Upon going through the records, it has been observed that the information provided against his RTI request is complete and hence the first appeal is disposed off."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 01.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO reiterating the aforementioned facts and same has been taken on record Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Girish Babu P, Senior Scientist, NRCM- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Complainant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
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 intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Page 3 Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...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."
xxx "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 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."
xxx Page 4 "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...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
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.
No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाशणत सत्याशित प्रशत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. शिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)