Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Naresh Kadyan vs Wildlife Crime Control Bureau Head ... on 12 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/WCCBH/A/2020/677750 -UM

Mr. Naresh Kadyan
                                                                            ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                            VERSUS
                                              बनाम



CPIO,
Wildlife Crime Control Bureau
HQ 2nd Floor, Trikoot-1, R.K.,
Bhikaji Cama Place, Rama Krishna Puram,
New Delhi 110066




                                                                            प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent




Date of Hearing       :             06.01.2022
Date of Decision      :             11.01.2022



Date of RTI application                                                   28.05.2020
CPIO's response                                                           05.06.2020
Date of the First Appeal                                                  05.06.2020
First Appellate Authority's response                                      17.06.2020
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                      Nil

                                           ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 13 points, as under:-

The CPIO vide letter dated 05.06.2020, furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 17.06.2020, upheld the reply of the CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent (mobile phone was switched off) Respondent: Mr. H.V Girish, Joint Director, present through AC.

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Despite its continuous efforts, the Commission was not able to contact the Appellant.

The Respondent while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that the Appellant had sought copies of documents related to Elephant despite being a wild animals but listed as Page 2 of 3 cattle in Indian Forest Act, Cattle Trespass Act, IPC 429, Delhi Police Act, Mumbai Police Act, Gujarat Police Act. The Respondent submitted that vide letters dated 10.06.2020 & 18.06.2020 they had furnished complete information on point no. 11. The Respondent further submitted that the information sought on remaining points is pertaining to CWLW, Maharashtra and Trade Marks Registry concerned.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission observes that no information has been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the current CPIO to collect the information sought from the concerned authority and furnish a point-wise and an updated revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) ू नाआयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवसं त्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 11.01.2022 Page 3 of 3