Central Information Commission
Smt. Viyana Berwal vs Khadi & Village Industries Commission on 20 March, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/KVICO/C/2024/648291
Smt. Viyana Berwal निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Khadi & Village Industries Commission
Date of Hearing : 18.03.2025
Date of Decision : 18.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 30.08.2024
PIO replied on : 04.09.2024
First Appeal filed on : 12.09.2024
First Appellate Order on : 24.09.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30.08.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Community Policing in good faith as scouting for IVORY: KARNATAKA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES ACT, 1956, (As amended by Act 25 of 1958, 9 of 1973, 16 of 1978, 21 of 1983 and 8 of 1985.), whereas under group IV. POLYMER AND CHEMICAL BASED INDUSTRY, at serial number 50. Horn and Bone including ivory products, which was Omitted through Karnataka Government Notification No: CV 38 SLV 2022 Dated: 04.02.2023 w.e.f. 04.02.2023.
With tireless services of Abhishek Kadyan and Smt. Sukanya Kadyan Berwal, with Naresh Kadyan, lodged complaints to the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, then WCCB directed to KVIC, to omit funding and promotion of ivory products, under scheme of KVIC, keeping in view, section 16 of KVIC Act. KVIC removed the objectionable activity, in fact it was a cognizable crime in legal terms under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and revised the negative list in 2013, without endorsing serious efforts.
Page 1 Supply complete details along with all communications and concerned file notings, related to issuance of 2013 negative list, omitting objectionable scheme.
Supply complete details, head wise released of funds utilization impact with present status, under Scheme of Fund for Regeneration of Traditional Industries (SFURTI) is an initiative by Ministry of MSME to promote Cluster development. Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) is the nodal Agency for promotion of Cluster development for Horn and Bone including ivory products.
Supply complete details, copies of all communications, agenda and approval of Karnataka Legislative Assembly, related to amend KARNATAKA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES ACT, 1956, omitting objectionable scheme, related to IVORY and details of complainant - whistleblower.
Supply complete details, copies of all communications, agenda and approval of Gujarat Legislative Assembly, related to amend Gujarat Rajya Khadi Gramodyog Board, Act, 2006, omitting objectionable scheme, related to IVORY and details of complainant - whistleblower, besides Elephant defined as cattle by the Gujarat Police Act, ignoring status of National Heritage Animal of India.
Supply action taken reports on the State Director of KVIC in Gujarat, related to many complaints petitions with copies of all directives, objectionable trademarks as well."
The CPIO, Khadi & Village Industries Commission vide letter dated 04.09.2024 replied as under:-
"Details, head wise released of funds utilization and status of projects related to such subject under SFURTI scheme may please be treated as 'Nil'."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 24.09.2024 stated as under:-
"On analysis of the RTI application dated 30.08.2024 and reply letter of CPIO, Mumbai dated 04.09.2024, it was found that the CPIO, Mumbai has provided information to the applicant in time.
CPIO has already provided the information in time and to the extent possible, the appeal filed by appellant merits no consideration and is hereby disposed of.
Copy of this order is sent to the Appellant and CPIO, Mumbai for information and necessary action."
Page 2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 24.02.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Pranita Rahul Tamhane- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly provided from their official records. She stated that the information related to SFURTI scheme has been provided to the RTI Applicant.
Decision:
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.
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 Page 3 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 "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.
Page 4 Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)