Central Information Commission
Nitin Singhvi vs Wildlife Institute Of India, Dehradun on 10 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure)
Nitin Singhvi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Section Officer-(RTI
Section), Wildlife Institute ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
of India (M/o. Environment,
Forests & Climate Change),
Dehradun, Uttarakhand
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 621627 20.01.2025 17.02.2025 18.02.2025 11.03.2025 12.05.2025
2. 643833 18.07.2025 14.08.2025 14.08.2025 09.09.2025 Nil.
3. 643834 18.07.2025 14.08.2025 14.08.2025 09.09.2025 Nil.
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 08.04.2026
Date of Decision: 08.04.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
Page 1 of 12
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/621627
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2025 seeking information on the following points:
"Under RTI please provide a copy of a technical report named upkeep and utilization of elephant sonu housed in elephant rescue and rehabilitation center pingua, surguja Chhattisgarh.
This report has been submitted in the year 2021 by Dr. Parag Nigam Scientist WII as a Chairman of the Committee to the Forest Department Chhattisgarh. Please note that under RTI information can be denied only on the grounds mentioned under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The applicant cannot be asked to approach Forest Department Chhattisgarh or PCCF (WL) Chhattisgarh for the information. Earlier the Honourable Central Information Commission in many cases has warned you to be cautious in future and ensure that proper replies should be provided to the applicant within the stipulated period as per the RTI Act so as to avoid penal provision, please keep this in mind while disposing application. However, the Forest Department Chhattisgarh is not having clear copies of the subject report."
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.02.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Reason for Rejection: Others.
Remarks:- Rejected as per provisions contained in section 6(3) of RTI Act and further clarified vide para 3(iv) of DoPT, M/o PPG&P O, M. No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008. You are requested that the information may be had from the concerned State Government/UT Administration,"
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Page 2 of 12 Appeal dated 18.02.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.03.2025 observed as under:-
"..Reply: DOPT O. M. dated 01.06.2009 clarifies clause (iii) of para 3 of the DOPT O. M. dated 12.06.2008, However RTI submitted by you rejected as per clause (iv) of para 3 of DOPT O. M. dated 12.06.2008. Hence, it is again informed that the information may be had from the concerned State Government/ UT Administration..."
1.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.05.2025.
1.4. A written submission has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Written Submission In Second Appeal No
CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/621627 Before The Hon'ble Information
Commissioner, Central Information Commission It is respectfully submitted: 1. That, the appellant sought the following information and the RTI application was as under: Under RTI please provide a copy of a technical report named UPKEEP AND UTILIZATION OF ELEPHANT SONU HOUSED IN ELEPHANT RESCUE AND REHABILITAION CENTER PINGUA, SURGUJA CHHATTISGARH.
2. That, the PIO rejected the application stating - Rejected as per provision contained in Section 6(3) of RTI and further clarified vide para 3(IV) of DOPT M/O PPG&P OM No. 10/2/2008 dated 12.06.2008. You are requested that the information may be had from the concerned State Government/UT Administration. (copy of CPIO's reply is attached as A-2 with the original appeal). 3. That, in the RTI application the appellant made it clear that the Forest Department Chhattisgarh is not having clear copies of the subject report. 4. That, Page 3 of 12 the CPIO can only refuse to provide the information based on the grounds provided in U/S 8(1) of the RTI Act. The CPIO has not mentioned any such ground and has directed the applicant to seek the sought information from Chhattisgarh. 5. That, Section 6(3) of the Act does not apply in the present case as the Wildlife Institute of India is a single public authority and the provisions of Section 5(4) read with Section 5(5) apply in the present case. The CPIO was duty bound to collect the information from the section where the sought report was available. 6. That the learned first appeal officer mindlessly disposed of the first appeal without giving a speaking order with reasons. Whereas the Central Information Commission in the order CIC/MOENF/A/2022/136574 dated 19.07.2023 has directed that the FAA is also advised to be more judicious in passing orders and not mindlessly endorse the reply/information provided by the CPIO. Prayer: 7. That, the CPIO may please be directed to provide the sought information and the penalty be imposed as per Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act till the CPIO provides the information. Suitable disciplinary action may please be directed against the FAA..."
Second Appeal No. CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/643833
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2025 seeking information on the following points:
"Under RTI please provide a copy of the letter sent on (or around) 25.04.2025 to the Wildlife Institute of India by the MoEF&CC on the subject related to Annual Progress Report on the Captive Elephant Database Project."Page 4 of 12
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.08.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
": The requested copy of the letter is a confidential letter, sent to Director WII, that can not be disclosed for public."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.08.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.09.2025 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
"I have gone through your RTI application dated 18.07.2025, reply given by CPIO thereto and your Appeal dated 14.08.2025 there against. As per Section 8(a) and 8(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the requested copy of the letter sent to Director WII, can not be disclosed for public."
2.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
2.4. A written submission has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Written Submission In Second Appeal No CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/643833 Before The Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission It is respectfully submitted: 1. That, the appellant sought a copy of the letter sent on (or around) 25.04.2025 to the Wildlife Institute of India by the MoEF&CC on the subject related to Annual Progress Report on the Captive Elephant Database Project. 2. That, the letter sought is a criticism made by MoEF&CC of the WII, highlighting serious mistakes such as the use of a photograph of an African elephant in a report meant for Indian elephants. The MoEF&CC has further pointed out that WII adopted a "cut- copy-paste" approach, resulting in a report lacking clarity, disregarding Page 5 of 12 scientific standards, and showing high textual similarity. This reflects negligence and squandering of taxpayer money. Therefore, disclosure of the records is in public interest, as citizens have a right to know how their resources are being utilized. 3. That, the CPIO refused to provide the copy of the letter stating it as confidential. 4. That, as per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, information can only be denied under the exemptions laid down in Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. 5. That, the FAA suo-moto changed the stand and refused to give the report stating the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(e) . 6. That, the sought letter is related to a report on the Captive Elephant Data Base and in any case cannot prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence. It is only a letter and cannot be treated as a deliberation paper as provided under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. 7. That, Section 8(1)(e) pertains to information held by a person in his fiduciary capacity. The Honourable Supreme Court has elaborately defined the meaning of fiduciary relationship in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011, dated 09.08.2011). In light of this decision, it is clear that the WII and MoEF&CC do not stand in a fiduciary relationship with respect to the information sought. PRAYER 8. That, The information sought may kindly be provided. 9. The CPIO, be penalized under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for failing to provide the requested information. 10. That the learned first appeal officer mindlessly disposed of the first appeal without giving a speaking order with reasons. Whereas the Central Information Commission in the order CIC/MOENF/A/2022/136574 dated 19.07.2023 has directed that the FAA is also advised to be more judicious in passing orders and not mindlessly endorse the reply/information provided by the CPIO. 11. Disciplinary action Page 6 of 12 against the FAA may kindly be recommended for acting in contravention of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court..."
Second Appeal No. CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/643834
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2025 seeking information on the following points:
"Under RTI please provide a copy of the report submitted in the year 2025 by the Wildlife Institute of India to the MoEF&CC named Annual Progress Report on the Captive Elephant Database Project."
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.08.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
": WII has sent a draft annual progress report on the Captive Elephant Databse Project to MoEF&CC for approval. after the approval of the MoEF&CC, the report will be available for public."
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.08.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.09.2025 observed as under:-
"..I have gone through your RTI application dated 18.07.2025, reply given by CPIO thereto and your Appeal dated 14.08.2025 there against. As per Section 8(a) and 8(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the draft annual progress report on the Captive Elephant Database Project sent to MoEF&CC can not be disclosed for public now..."
3.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
3.4. A written submission has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
Page 7 of 12"..Written Submission In Second Appeal No CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/643834 Before The Hon'ble Information
Commissioner, Central Information Commission It is respectfully submitted: 1. That, the appellant sought a copy of the report submitted in the year 2025 by the Wildlife Institute of India to the MoEF&CC named Annual Progress Report on the Captive Elephant Database Project. 2. That, the CPIO refused to proide the information stating that the report had been sent to the MoEF&CC for approval and would be made public after the approval. 3. As per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, information can only be denied under the exemptions laid down in Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. 4. The learned FAA suo-moto changed the stand and refused to give the report stating the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(e) . 5. That, the sought report is related to a report on the Captive Elephant Data Base and in any case cannot prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence. It is only a report and cannot be treated as a deliberation paper as provided under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. 6. Section 8(1)(e) pertains to information held by a person in his fiduciary capacity. The Honourable Supreme Court has elaborately defined the meaning of fiduciary relationship in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011, dated 09.08.2011). In light of this decision, it is clear that the WII and MoEF&CC do not stand in a fiduciary relationship with respect to the information sought.
7. The draft report prepared by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), a publicly funded body, contains serious mistakes, such as using a photo of an African elephant in a report meant for Indian elephants--an error Page 8 of 12 admitted by the MoEF&CC. The MoEF&CC has also criticized the WII for using a "cut-copy-paste" approach, producing a report that lacks clarity, ignores scientific standards, and shows high textual similarity. This shows negligence and waste of taxpayer money. Hence, disclosure of the records is in public interest, as citizens have a right to know how their money is being used. 8. The Honourable Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H. Satya [(2011) 8 SCC 781] held that even draft reports are covered under the definition of information and are disclosable unless they fall under a specific exemption. PRAYER 9. The CPIO, who has disobeyed the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Para 4 above), be penalized under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for failing to provide the requested information. 10. Disciplinary action against the FAA may kindly be recommended for acting in contravention of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Para 4 above). 11. The information sought may kindly be provided..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Rajnish Sharma, Internal Audit Officer and Dr, Samanth Mondal- through video-conference.
4. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information as available in their record has been duly provided to the Appellant in file No. CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/621627, the actual custodian of information sought is Forest Department, Chhattisgarh. It was stated that report which was sought by the Appellant is not part of their official record. Furthermore, the report was submitted to the Forest Department as the committee was constituted on the direction of Forest Department, Chhattisgarh. Further, in file No. Second Appeal No. CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/643833 Page 9 of 12 The letter which has been sought by the Appellant has been already provided by the Ministry to the Appellant in one of the cases which is listed today for hearing. As regards File No. Second Appeal No. CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/643834, the PIO stated that the copy of draft annual progress report on the Captive Elephant Database Project was sent to MoEF&CC for approval and after the approval of the MoEF&CC, the report will be available in public domain.
Decision:
Second Appeal No. CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/621627
5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate response has been duly provided to the Appellant. It is noted that as submitted by the PIO during hearing the report which was sought by the Appellant is not part of their official record.
Furthermore, the report was submitted to the Forest Department as the committee was constituted on the direction of Forest Department, Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the actual custodian of information is Forest Department, Chhattisgarh.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the term "information" is defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as any material that exists in recorded form and is held by or under the control of a Public Authority. The key principle is that RTI Act gives citizens access to existing records if a document or data is part of the official records of a department, the PIO is generally obligated to provide it, unless it falls under specific exemptions mentioned under Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. At the same time, the Act clearly limits the scope of information to what is already available with the Public Authority. It does not require PIO to create new information or compile data in a way that is not already maintained. If the requested information is not on record, or is not held by the Public Authority, it is not considered "information" under Section 2(f), and the authority can lawfully deny it. However, if the information exists but is held by another department, Page 10 of 12 the application should ideally be transferred under Section 6(3), rather than simply rejected.
7. In view foregoing, the Commission is of the opinion that an appropriate response has been duly provided by the PIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence intervention of the Commission is not necessary in this case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Second Appeal No. CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/643833
8. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission observes that the Appellant has sought copy of letter dated 25.04.2025 sent by Ministry of Environment and Climate Change on the subject related to Annual Progress Report on the Captive Elephant Database Project. It is noted that the said letter has been already provided to the Appellant by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change in reply to another RTI Application of the Appellant and same annexed with the copy of Second Appeal No. CIC/MOENF/A/2025/641265. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Second Appeal No. CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/643834
9. Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal 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 ) Page 11 of 12 Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Section Officer-(RTI Section), Wildlife Institute of India (M/o. Environment, Forests & Climate Change), Chandrabani, Dehradun-248001 (Uttarakhand).
2 Nitin Singhvi
Sl. No. Second Appeals
1 CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/621627
2 CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/643833
3 CIC/WLIOI/A/2025/643834
Page 12 of 12
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)