Naresh Kadyan vs Animal Welfare Board Of India on 20 June, 2023

[Cites 36, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Naresh Kadyan vs Animal Welfare Board Of India on 20 June, 2023

Bench: Saroj Punhani

के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : As per Annexure.

Naresh Kadyan ....िशकायतकता /Complainant

VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Animal welfare Board of India,
RTI Cell, National Institute of Animal
Welfare Campus P.O. 42 KM Stone,
Delhi-Agra Highway, NH-2, Village-Seekri,
Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana-121004. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing : 14/06/2023
Date of Decision : 14/06/2023

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani

Note - The above-mentioned Complaints have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.

Relevant facts emerging from complaints:

Complaint RTI CPIO's First FAA's order Complaint
no. Application reply dated Appeal dated dated
dated filed on
605620 12.11.2021 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
607606 12.11.2021 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
607705 22.11.2021 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
607706 22.11.2021 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
1
607711 25.09.2021 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
607715 25.09.2021 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
608269 24.11.2021 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
611575 07.12.2021 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil
616459 06.01.2022 N.A. Nil N.A. Nil

CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/605620
Information sought

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2021 seeking the following information:

"Animal Welfare Party: AWP, 1st Political Party in India, fighting hard for animals, restoring their 5 freedoms, but adopted mechanism of Indian Government, have contradiction and discriminations, as below, adopting double standards:

Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

(13). GOODS, includes live-stock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle.

(14). Goods carriage means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods.

Whereas, these goods, as stated above, have five freedoms, even Supreme Court order, dated 7.5.2014 in SIP (C) No.11686 of 2007, also confirmed, as per section 54: Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of 01E, recognizes five internationally recognized freedoms for animals, such as:

(i) freedom from hunger, thirst, and malnutrition.

(ii) freedom from fear and distress.

(iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort.

(iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease and 2

(v) freedom to express normal patterns of Behaviour, read with the section 3 of the PCA Act, 1960 and article 51 A(g) of Indian Constitution. Section 2 of the PCA Act, 1960:

(a) Animal means any living creature other than a human being.

(c) Captive animal means any animal (not being a domestic animal) which is in captivity or confinement, whether permanent or temporary, or which is subjected to any appliance or contrivance for the purpose of hindering or preventing its escape from captivity or confinement or which is pinioned or which is or appears to be maimed.

(d) Domestic animal, means any animal which is tamed or which has been or is being sufficiently tamed to serve some purpose for the use of man or which, although it neither has been nor is being nor is intended to be so tamed, is or has become in fact wholly or partly tamed. Supply with concerned file noting, before placing any bills, amending PCA Act, 1960:

1. list of complaints, lodged for restoration of 5 freedoms, compliance of court orders, including 100 Smart Cities.

2. Goods may not have 5 freedoms, supply detailed activities of AWBI, prevent abuse against goods, defined animals.

3. Goods, cannot be a living creature, have pain and sufferings, supply relevant records of AWBI."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607606 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2021 seeking the following information:

"Animal Welfare Party: AWP, 1st Political Party in India, fighting hard for animals, restoring their 5 freedoms, supply with concerned file notings, along with copies of all letters, along with status of:

1. FIR No. 0149/2020 dated 19.06.2020, U/S 403, 406 & 420 IPC, P.S. Mundkati, Palwal, Haryana, reason for the delay is submission papers.

2. Copies of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961 along with action taken on DOPAT-E-

2021- 11234.

3. Complete list and details of Animal Welfare Division, shifted under Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, since beginning till date.

4. Copies of cabinet notes along all proposals, related to NIAW, status of NIAW MoU with LUVAS.

5. Copies of AWBI registration and recognition of PETA India with HIS India and FIAPO.

6. Copies of all advisories, quoting section 9(k) of PCA Act, 1960, as attached.

7. File notings with copies of agenda and compliance, related to:

A) ADDITIONAL ITEM NO.1: Consideration of matter relating to complaint filed by Shri Naresh Kadyan to directed AWBI for formulating rules for camels and elephants' transportation. It was decided to circulate this to the Sub-Committee to take a decision regarding this matter. 37TH GENERAL MEETING OF AWBI.

B) Sub Item-Additional Item No.1: The Board requested Mr. Jayasimha, Sub Committee Member to forward the draft Rules for Camels and Elephants transportation. 38TH GENERAL MEETING of ABI.

C) Chairman also briefed about the new Animal Welfare initiatives working in close association with Humane Society International (HSI), FIAPO and PETA. ITEM No.11: Consideration of the matter relating to removal of Elephants and other animals from Circuses. Dr. Manilal Valliyate, Co-opted Member, AWBI and Director of Veterinary Affairs, PETA - India gave a Power Point Presentation regarding the investigation/inspection of 16 circuses conducted by a team authorized by AWBI. The Board directed to 4 submit a complete report on the project with recommendations for provision for rehabilitation of circus animals for further consideration of AWBI and MOEF. In view of the report, the Board decided to stop immediate performance of all the injured and aged animals in the D) ITEM NO.19: Discuss Transportation of Animals in specified vehicles as Suggested by Haryana State Govt. for implementation by all State Governments and UTs. The Board directed to write to all State Governments with copy of order issued by Government of Haryana to adopt the same in the respective States. 39TH GENERAL MEETING of AWBI. Attached application."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607705 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.11.2021 seeking the following information:

"Animal Welfare Party: AWP, 1st Political Party in India, asked publicly all Members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, CPIO of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, that:

1. Have they performed fundamental duties as defined under article 51 A (g) of Indian Constitution, to be humane towards animals.

2. Delhi has 11 Revenue and 15 Police Districts, till today 11 SPCAs are not established, even AWBI tendered false affidavits and reply was unjustified, in Civil Suit No. 573 of 2018, public funds were mutualized, abuse of powers and authority.

3. In Delhi, 100 BSF Camels badly abused, during their shifting as goods, in public goods transport, since 2010 onwards, AWBI received complaints with proof of Republic Day parade every year on Rajpath but AWBI, never include cruelty against these camels, in their annual reports, Why and RTI were not replied, 2nd Appeal with CIC?

4. Animals have 5 freedoms but animals and birds, still covered under the definition of GOODS - Agriculture products, why?

5. All 100 Smart Cities spent public funds, ignoring animals and birds, public nuisance, as well. AWP moved complaints, under 133 CrPC, all around 6 Smart Cities in Gujarat.

6. The performance of 6 species are banned, under section 22 of PCA Act, 1960. AWBI spoiled social fabric, public stage of entertainment, under foreign based - sick mentality, VAGAN theory, which is against food habits of Indian community. Supply me all permission granted to all recognized and approved ZOOS, by CZA, to display lion, tiger, monkey, bear, panther, even people enters in the Zoo premises, purchasing tickets.

7. If Performing Animals Rules 1973 and 2001, both are applicable, then supply me list of establishments, registered under Rules 1973 and 2001, separately with present status of registered animals and action taken reports of AWBI.

8. AWBI prepared bogus annual reports, tendering false information, misguiding Minister concerned, to make fool, as below, AWP challenge all public servants for open debate."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607706 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2021 seeking the following information:

"Animal Welfare Party: AWP, 1st Political Party in India, fighting hard for animals, restoring their 5 freedoms, but adopted mechanism of Indian Government, have contradiction and discriminations, as below, adopting double standards:

Section 2 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:

(52). Goods means every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply. Section 2 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002:

(c) Biological resources, means plants, animals and micro-organisms or parts thereof, their genetic material and by-products (excluding value added products) with actual or potential use or value, but does not include human genetic material.

(f) Commercial utilization means end uses of biological resources for commercial utilization such as drugs, industrial enzymes, food flavors, fragrance, cosmetics, emulsifiers, oleoresins, colors, extracts and genes used for improving crops and livestock through genetic intervention but does not include conventional breeding or traditional practices in use in any agriculture, horticulture, poultry, dairy farming, animal husbandry or bee keeping. Section 2 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972:

(1) Animal includes amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles and their young, and also includes, in the cases of birds and reptiles, their eggs.

Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

(13). GOODS, includes live-stock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle.

Whereas, these goods, as stated above, have five freedoms, even Supreme Court order, dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007, also confirmed, as per section 54: Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of 01E, recognizes five internationally recognized freedoms for animals. Section 2 of the PCA Act, 1960:

(a) Animal, means any living creature other than a human being. Supply with concerned file noting, relating to discrimination between animal with goods:

1. List of complaints, lodged for restoration of 5 freedoms, in ZOOS, compliance of court orders, including Zoos of 100 Smart Cities.

2. Goods may not have 5 freedoms, supply detailed activities of AWBI, prevent abuse against goods, defined animals.

3. Goods, cannot be a living creature, have pain and sufferings, supply relevant records of NHAI, NTCA, WCCB, PE, NBA, GST Council with AWBI and CM.

4. Fundamental duties, never allowed animals as goods supply all details, related to animals, being living creatures, treated as goods, against article 51 A (g) of Indian Constitution.

5. Any proposal to omit animals- livestock, from the definition of goods."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607711 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 25.09.2021 seeking the following information:

"Community Policing as man of many achievements and distinctions: Voice for voiceless: Fighter by spirit: Jat by birth: Philanthropist by profession: Activist by mission: Humanitarian by choice, Gandhian by vision and action, being habitual khadi wearers and scout worrier Naresh Kadyan, with their consent of Smt. Sukanya Berwal, based Ahmedabad and Abhishek Kadyan and Smt. Suman Kadyan, based in Canada, asked to supply with concerned file notings, copies of policies and orders, as stated below, related to Poultry birds and fish with marine animals, as a commercial activities, adopting discrimination, exploitation and double standards, different- selective priority among animals, disturbing social fabric, which destroy coexistence, effecting man animal conflict:

1. Pointwise strict compliance of 5 freedoms for Poultry birds and fish with other marine animals, according to extracts of some Pans of Supreme Court order dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007, from Para No. 77, Point Numbers 1 to 12 along with AWBI mandate, keeping in view article 51 Mg) of Indian Constitution, read with section 3, 11(3), 27(b), 28, 36, 37 and 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, concerned extracts attached herewith and life time achievements as annexure A.

2. Commercial utilization of biological resources, without sharing profits to Biodiversity Management Committees as Poultry birds, and fish with marine animals, adopting cruel mechanism, making them fool, discriminating and exploitation, among living creatures, as per section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, violating the legal provisions under Biological Diversity Act, 2002

3. Point wise strict compliance of section 9 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 with advisory issued under section 9(k) of the said Act, including Poultry birds and fish with marine animals.

4. Strict compliance of section 10 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, regulating Poultry birds and fish with marine animals.

5. Define - Right to life, legal right of Poultry birds and fish with marine animals, keeping in view 5 freedoms and section 3 of PCA Act, 1960.

6. Define and clarify, the killing process of exploitation to obtain mechanism of their flesh, meat for human consumption as diet, adopting halal - jhatka process without stunning

7. Halal process of killing is legal or illegal, define and clarify.

8. Poultry birds are living creatures have feelings of pain and suffering, treated as agriculture products, whereas living creature cannot covered under this definition, define, and clarify."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607715 9 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 25.09.2021 seeking the following information:

"Community Policing as man of many achievements and distinctions: Voice for voiceless: Fighter by spirit: Jat by birth: Philanthropist by profession: Activist by mission: Humanitarian by choice, Gandhian by vision and action, being habitual khadi wearers and scout worrier Naresh Kadyan, with their consent of Smt. Sukanya Berwal, based Ahmedabad and Abhishek Kadyan and Smt. Suman Kadyan, based in Canada, asked to supply with concerned file notings, as stated below, related to Cocoon farming with silk manufacturing along with Pearl farming with manufacturing moti, and bee farming with the production of honey and earth worms, as a commercial activities, adopting discrimination, exploitation and double standards, different- selective priority among animals, disturbing social fabric, which destroy coexistence, effecting man animal conflict:

1. Pointwise strict compliance of 5 freedoms for cocoon, silk worms and Pearl worms, with honey bees and earth worms, according to extracts of some Pans of Supreme Court order dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007, from Pan No. 77, Point Numbers 1 to 12 along with AWBI mandate, keeping in view article 51 A(g) of Indian Constitution, read with section 3, 11(3), 27(b), 28, 36, 37 and 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, concerned extracts attached herewith and life time achievements as annexure A.

2. Commercial utilization of biological resources, without sharing profits to Biodiversity Management Committees as Cocoon, Pearl worm with honeybees farming and earth worms, adopting cruel mechanism, making them fool, discriminating and exploitation, among living creatures, as per section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, violating the legal provisions under Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

3. Point wise strict compliance of section 9 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 with advisory issued under section 9(k) of the said Act, including Cocoon, Pearl with earth worms and honeybees farming.

4. Strict compliance of section 10 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, regulating Cocoon, Pearl and earth worm and honeybees farming.

5. Define - Right to life, legal right of Cocoon and Pearl with earth worm with honeybees, keeping in view 5 freedoms and section 3 of PCA Act, 1960.

6. Explain Nonviolence is the basic principles of Gandhian values but Khadi and Village Industries Commission, granting financial assistance as grant in aid for Cocoon worm farming to silk manufacturing with Pearl worms to make moti and bees to get honey for gain and profit, earth worms as well to get fertilizer, which is against values of Gandhian philosophy and ideology, whereas all these covered under the terms of animal, keeping in view the definition of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, besides exploitation of honey bees but animal husbandry comes under Negative list of KVIC.

7. Define killing process of exploitation to obtain mechanism of their output."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/608269 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2021 seeking the following information:

"Convener, Animal Welfare Party, Retired Commissioner, Bharat Scouts and Guides, Haryana, Chief National Commissioner, Scouts and Guides for Animal and Birds, National Authority for Animal Welfare: ()IPA - Indian People for Animals, Member, IUCN Commission for Education and Communication along with Smt. Sukanya Berwal with Manjeet Berwal and Smt. Suman Kadyan with Abhishek Kadyan, performing their fundamental duties as defined under article 51 A (g) of Indian Constitution, read with section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and article 48 of the Constitution of India, which is one of the Directive Principles, which directs the state to make efforts for banning animal slaughtering of cows 11 and calves and other milch and draught cattle. It further states to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines.

Whereas, animals are living creatures, as per the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, besides five freedoms, keeping in view, extracts of some paras of Supreme Court order, dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007 and Goods, rest of other legislations. Hence, AWP, wants to supply - copies, a complete list, details along with action taken report, case registered under sections, status of present case, cases disposed, under trials, status and details of vehicles, used in crime against animals, passed - approved by which authority with strict compliance of all rules and regulations, related to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 along with the Delhi Police Act, 1978, as animals shifted as goods in transport vehicles, file notings as well:

1. Cases registered with the Delhi Police

2. Cases registered with Delhi Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

3. Complete details, list of 2nd offenses, against animals

4. Complete details, list of cases disposed, under trial and investigation, for 2nd offenses, as stated above.

5. Complete list of Infirmaries, declared under section 35 of PCA Act, 1960.

6. Status of membership application of DSPCA, related to Naresh Kadyan.

7. Complete list and details about Cow Hostel, all around India.

8. Complete details about grant in aid, head wise for Cow Hostel.

9. Complete tenure of non-recurring grant in aid, keeping in view depreciations."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/611575 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.12.2021 seeking the following information:

"Community Policing as Scouting for restoration of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961, which was re-notify by the Govt. of Goa, but these rules are, neither on the 12 record of the Animal Welfare Board of India, being not uploaded on their official website, but these rules are missing, adopting criminal conspiracy.

Secretary of the AWBI, may kindly be scanned along with Assistant Secretary and other public servants, who became liability and burden on public funds. Animal Welfare Party: AWP, 1st Political Party in India, restoring 5 freedoms for animals, along with clarification of definition, as animals are being treated as goods, besides living creatures, hence supply all letters with file notings, concerning the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961, along with:

1. Action taken on DOPAT/E/2021/11234, with present status.

2. Status of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961.

3. Complete list and details of the Constitution of AWBI, keeping in view, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961.

4. Complete details and reasons of non-compliance of the legal provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961.

5. Complete details of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961, duly placed - laydown before both Houses of Parliament.

6. Present status of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961, dead or alive.

7. Complete list of tainted officials, behind the non-compliance of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961.

8. Legal status of all constitution of AWBI, since 1961 onwards till date, keeping in view the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961.

9. Amount incurred on each berth holder of AWBI, with their contributions, towards AWBI mandate, since 1961 onwards till date."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/616459 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.01.2022 seeking the following information:

"AWBI claims that PETA India 1st Investigation report on Great Gemini Circus was prepared at their own with bad intention, during period October 24-26, 2021 at Lucknow, without reporting crime against animals, to the local enforcement agencies, instead submitting report to the AWBI, who has no right to try and decide the offenses against the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, is a sufficient evidence, being organised crime against Indian Circus community, adopting criminal conspiracy and the integrity of PETA India became doubtful, needs immediate FIR against PETA India, because they are breach the trust of Indian Citizen, keeping in view section 36 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, besides all officials of PETA India are on the pay role of foreign based and branch in India with special mission to spread mud on the social fabric and our traditions.

In past, 16 Indian Circuses were also conducted report on Investigation, by PETA India but instead reporting crime to local Police, they make report with bad intention, violating section 36 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ad, 1960 and so on, being habitual offenders with silent consent of public representative, enjoying berth in Indian Parliament, even Cabinet many times.

Animal Welfare Party: 1st Political Party in India, restoring co-existence animals with human beings, preventing man animal conflict and unnecessary pain and sufferings to the animals, the mandate of AWBI, keeping in view article 51 A(g) of Indian Constitution, whereas 5 freedoms of animals is impossible in India, even all around Universe, hence to expose PETA movement, AWP wants to know with all concerned file notings, status of the cases as reported to the Police, lodged FIRS in India, for the violation 14 crime against animals, since last 25 years till date, even PETA India CEO enjoyed berth in the Delhi State Committee on Slaughter Houses with many National Committees of Ministries with bad intentions, including:

1. Complete list of crime against animals, reported and FIR lodged by the PETA in India, along with present status of the cases, as decided or under trial -investigations.

2. Complete list of pay role of the PETA in India with their annual reports and impact, preventing cruelty against animals.

3. Complete list of shelter for animals in distress, run and managed by PETA in India.

4. Complete list of ambulances for animals in distress, run and managed by PETA in India.

5. Complete list of on spot treatment for animals in distress, run and managed by PETA in India.

6. Complete list of court cases, under cover of PETA in India, with the status.

7. Complete details of sources of funds, donations, grant in aid with FCRA and their use.

Now AWP lodging FIR against hidden agenda of PETA and AWBI with so called under cover animal rights and welfare, whereas discrimination with animals and goods, all around India, abandoned animals are sufferings but so called these enjoying berth in Parliament."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant set of Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent: Prachi Jain, Asst. Secretary & CPIO present through intra-video conference.

The Complainant at the outset vehemently expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that no reply pertaining to each case has even been provided to him till date which is in utter disregard to the spirit of RTI Act. He further flagged various issues while arguing the case on the following lines -

1. He has filed RTI Applications originally with the CPIO, Lok Sabha in case no.

CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607706 and with CPIO, Department of Revenue in case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607711; however, it has been arbitrarily transferred to the CPIO, Animal Welfare Board without any due intimation to the Complainant;

2. An order has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23 OF 2016 on 18.05.2023 wherein the Court held as under -

"...(i) The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation. It relates, in pith and substance, to Entry 17 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It minimises cruelty to animals in the concerned sports and once the Amendment Act, along with their Rules and Notification are implemented, the aforesaid sports would not come within the mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 3, 11(1) (a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.

(ii) Jallikattu is a type of bovine sports and we are satisfied on the basis of materials disclosed before us, that it is going on in the State of Tamil Nadu for at least last few centuries. This event essentially involves a bull which is set free in an arena and human participants are meant to grab the hump to score in the "game". But whether this has become integral part of Tamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysis in greater detail, which in our opinion, is an exercise that cannot be undertaken by the Judiciary. The question as to whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particular State is a debateable issue which has to be concluded in the House of the People. This ought not be a part of judicial inquiry and particularly having regard to the activity in question and the materials in the form of texts cited before us by both the petitioners and the 16 respondents, this question cannot be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings. Since legislative exercise has already been undertaken and Jallikattu has been found to be part of cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, we would not disrupt this view of the legislature. We do not accept the view reflected in the case of A. Nagaraja that performance of Jallikattu is not a part of the cultural heritage of the people of the State of Tamil Nadu. We do not think there was sufficient material before the Court for coming to this conclusion. In the Preamble to the Amendment Act, Jallikattu has been described to be part of culture and tradition of Tamil Nadu. In the case of A. Nagaraja (supra), the Division Bench found the cultural approach unsubstantiated and referring to the manner in which the bulls are inflicted pain and suffering, the Division Bench concluded that such activities offended Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act.

Even if we proceed on the basis that legislature is best suited branch of the State to determine if particular animal-sports are part of cultural tradition of a region or community, or not, if such cultural event or tradition offends the law, the penal consequence would follow. Such activities cannot be justified on the ground of being part of cultural tradition of a State. In A. Nagaraja (supra), the sports were held to attract the restriction of Sections 3 and 11(1)(a) and (m) of the 1960 Act because of the manner it was practiced.

The Amendment Act read with the Rules seek to substantially minimise the pain and suffering and continue with the traditional sports. The Amendment having received Presidential assent, we do not think there is any flaw in the State action. "Jallikattu" as bovine sports have to be isolated from the manner in which they were earlier practiced and organising the sports itself would be permissible, in terms of the Tamil Nadu Rules.

(iii)The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not in pith and substance, to ensure survival and well-being of the native breeds of bulls. The said Act is also not relatable to Article 48 of the Constitution of India. Incidental impact of the said Amendment Act may fall upon the breed of a particular type of bulls and affect agricultural activities, but in pith and substance the Act is relatable to Entry 17 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.

(iv) Our answer to this question is in the negative. In our opinion, the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not go contrary to the Articles 51-A

(g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(v) The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act read along with the Rules framed in that behalf is not directly contrary to the ratio of the judgment in the case of A. Nagaraja (supra) and judgment of this Court delivered on 16th November 2016 dismissing the plea for Review of the A. Nagaraja (supra) judgment as we are of the opinion that the defects pointed out in the aforesaid two judgments have been overcome by the State Amendment Act read with the Rules made in that behalf.

41. Our decision on the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act would also guide the Maharashtra and the Karnataka Amendment Acts and we find all the three Amendment Acts to be valid legislations..."

Despite this, the cruelty against the animals prevails in the society and they are being treated as transporters for carrying out baggage and luggage.

3. In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/616459 the Complainant contested the alleged inaction of Animal Welfare Board in collusion with PETA India to treat the cattle in a cruel manner as a non-living creatures;

In response to Complainant's contentions, the CPIO at the outset submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has been provided to the Complainant against each impugned RTI Applications. In this regard, the CPIO also invited the attention of the bench towards their written submissions filed prior to hearing, relevant extracts of which case wise are reproduced below in verbatim -

In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/605620 -

"The Board has replied to the online RTI Application no. AWBIC/R/E/21/00110 dated 12-11-2021 and the reply was sent on 03.12.2021. The Appeal No. AWBIC/A/E/21/00075 dated 13.12.2021 was sent on 17.01.2022.

Contents of Reply dated 03.12.2021 is as under -

Ans.1 & 2: The complaints can be lodged by the law enforcement authorities against the offenders meting out cruelty to animals as well as violating any law or directions of the Court.

Ans.3: The information sought is not available with the Board."

In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607606 -

"The Board has replied to the online RTI Application no. AWBIC/R/T/21/00148dated 22-11-2021 and the reply was sent on 20.12.2021. The Appeal No. AWBIC/A/E/21/00077 dated 22.12.2021 was sent on

04.02.2022.

Contents of Reply dated 20.12.2021 is as under -

Ans.1: Matter is under sub-judice.

Ans.2: The information is available in the public domain. Ans.3 & 4: The information sought is not available with the Board. Ans.5: The HIS, PeTA and FIAPO is not registered with the Board. Hence, the information sought, is not available with the Board. Ans.6 The advisories/circulars issued by the Board is available in the website xxxx Ans.7: The matter regarding the formulation of Rules for transportation of Camels is under consideration of the Board.

In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607705 -

"The Board has replied to the online RTI Application no. AWBIC/R/T/21/00151 dated 22-11-2021 and the reply was sent on 20.12.2021. The Appeal No. AWBIC/A/E/21/00079 dated 22.12.2021 was sent on 04.02.2022.

Contents of Reply dated 20.12.2021 is as under -

Ans.1: It is informed that 'this' does not come under definition of °information"

under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Ans. 2, 5 & 8: There is no information sought in this question.

Ans.3 & 4: I am directed to inform you that as per the decision dated 3.4.2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.419 of 2007 in the case of Dr.Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State information Commission, that the term "information' as defied in the Right to Information Act does not include answers to the question. The relevant para of Judgement is reproduced below:-

The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question `why' which would be same thing as caked the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes, a requisition about information. Justification are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information", Ans. 6- As per the available records, the Board does not have the information regarding the permission granted to Zoos by Central Zoo Authority. The information may be airs liable with the Central Zoo Authority.

Ans.7: The separate list of registered animals is not available under Rules 1973 and 2001."

In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607706 -

"The Board has replied to the online RTI Application no. AWBIC/R/T/21/00150 dated 22-11-2021 and the reply was sent on 20.12.2021. The Appeal No. AWBIC/A/E/21/00078 dated 22.12.2021 was sent on 04.02.2022.

Contents of Reply dated 20.12.2021 is as under -

Ans. l: The Board doesn't register Zoo. The information, may be available with the Central Zoo Authority.

Ans.2 to 4: The information sought is not clear.

Ans.5: There is no information available regarding such proposal for omitting animals-livestock as good.."

In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607711 -

"The Board has replied to the online RTI Application no. AWBIC/R/E/21/00095dated 25-09-2021 and the reply was sent on 22.10.2021. The Appeal No. AWBIC/A/E/21/00061 dated 14.11.2021 was sent on 24.12.2022.

Contents of Reply dated 22.10.2021 is as under -

Ans.1: The Board has forwarded the order of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 7.5.2014 to all the States/ UTs for implementation of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960 and its Rules effectively. Ans.2: There is no information sought in this question. Ans.3: The advisories/circulars issued by the Board are available in the website:

Ans.4, 5 & 8: The information sought is not available with the Board Ans.6 & 7: The information sought is not available with the Board. However the information sought may be available with the FSSAI and APEDA."

In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607715-

"The Board has replied to the online RTI Application no. AWBIC/R/E/21/00094 dated 25-09-2021 and the reply was sent on 22.10.2021. The Appeal No. AWBIC/A/E/21/00062 dated 14.11.2021 was sent on 24.12.2022.

Contents of Reply dated 22.10.2021 is as under -

Ans.1: The Board has forwarded the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 7.5.2014 to all the States/UTs for implementation of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and its Rules effectively. Ans.2: There is no information sought in this question. Ans.3: The advisories/circulars issued by the Board are available in the website:

Ans.4 & 5: The information sought is not available with the Board Ans.6: I am directed to inform you that as per the decision dated 3.4.2008 of the Honble High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.419 of 2007 in the case of Dr.Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State Information Commission, that the term "information" as defined in the Right Information Act does not include answers to the question like "why". The relevant par of Judgement is reproduced below:-

"The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why' which would be same thing as asked the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justification are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information".

Ans. 7: The information sought is not available with the Board...."

In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/608269 -

"The Board has replied to the online RTI Application no. AWBIC/R/T/21/00152 dated 24-11-2021 and the reply was sent on 29.11.2021 & 20.12.2021. The Appeal No. AWBIC/A/E/21/00080 dated 24.12.2021 was sent on 04.02.2022.

Contents of Reply dated 29.11.2021 & 20.12.2021 are as under -

The Public Information Officer, Delhi SPCA Animal Husbandry Unit, Tis Hazari, Zorawar Singh Marg, near Pul Mithai, Delhi - 110054 Sir, Subject: Application under RTI Act, 2005 - Reg Ref. : Online RTI application No. AWBIC/R/ T/2 0152 dated 24.11.2021 and DOAHD/R/E/21/00384 I am forwarding herewith the application received from Shri Naresh Kadyan, C- 38, Rose Apartment, Prashant Vihar, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi - 110 085 pertaining to cases registered against animals, under trail and investigation, 2nd offenses and Membership is closely related to your department. The above RTI application is transferred to the Chief Public Information Officer, Climate change, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under Section 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 for furnishing reply to Question No.2 to 4 and 6 directly to the applicant with a copy of the action taken report be forwarded to the Board for information.

A copy of the application is enclosed herewith.

xxx xxx xxx Ans.1 to 4 & 6: The RTI Application are transferred to Delhi police and Delhi SPCA for providing the information.

Ans.5: As per the available records, the list of infirmaries as per Section of the Prevention' of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960 is not available with the Board. The same may be available with the respective State Governments/UTs. Ans.7 & 8: The list of cow hostels and grant-in-aid details is not available with the Board. The same may be available with the respective State Governments/UTs. Ans.9: The information sought is not clear. The applicant is requested to seek the information-pertaining to the specific points clearly.

In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/611575 -

"The Board has replied to the online RTI Application no. AWBIC/R/T/21/00159 dated 07-12-2021 and the reply was sent on 05.01.2022. The Appeal No. AWBIC/A/E/21/00080 dated 09.01.2022 was sent on 11.02.2022.

Contents of Reply dated 05.01.2022 is as under -

Ans.1: As per the available records, the information sought regarding action taken on DOPAT/E/2021/11234 is available on the public portal.

Ans.2 to 9: The information sought regarding Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Elections of Members of Animal Welfare Board) Rules, 1961 is not available with the Board..."

In case no. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/616459 -

"The Board has replied to the online RTI Application no. AWBIC/R/T/21/00001 dated 06.01.2022 and the reply was sent on 16.01.2022. The Appeal No. AWBIC/A/E/22/00005 dated 06.02.2022 was sent on 15.03.2022.

Contents of Reply dated 16.01.2022 is as under -

Ans.1 to 7: As per the available records, PETA India is not recognized by the Animal Welfare Board of India. Hence, the information sought regarding the FIR lodged, annual reports, shelters run by them, court cases filed and details of sources of funds, donations, grant in aid with FCRA is not available with the Board..."

The CPIO further submitted that the allegations raised by the Complainant regarding the alleged cruelty against Animals are not acceptable and further with respect to the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court (as mentioned above); the concerned Ministry is working on it and that once the decision is taken ; relevant Amendments in the Act along with directives/circulars/ notifications will be executed soon.

Decision At the outset, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that a bunch of Complaints (s)/ Appeals bearing File no. CIC/MORTH/A/2020/685460 & others of the same Complainant against different public authorities have already been heard and disposed of by this bench on 07.11.2022, 27.12.2022, 18.01.2023 and 06.02.2023. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the nature of queries or in other words same statements he made to ask for clarifications from the CPIO merely to pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:

"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate 24 and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Complainant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Applications in question is of the considered view that the queries raised by the Complainant are more in the nature of observations and in fact are vague and in determinate which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act per se. For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Complainant shall note that the outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."

His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:

"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:

"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."

This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."

"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information 26 which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."

(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:

"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.

Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;

The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the replies and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing are in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.

Moreover, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Complainant to initiate any penal action against the CPIOs for the want of malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:

" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."

Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:

"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."

Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:

"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.

xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."

The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:

"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty."

Having observed as above, no further action is warranted in the instant matters.

However, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of her latest written submissions along with enclosures free of charge with the Complainant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

The Complaint (s) are disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 29 Annexure S.no. Case file no.

1. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/605620

2. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607606

3. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607705

4. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607706

5. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607711

6. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/607715

7. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/608269

8. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/611575

9. CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/616459 30

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission