Abhishek Verma v. Cpio, Animal Welfare...

Amita Pandove, IC

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed RTI Application dated 20.07.2020 seeking information on the following eight points:

Subject-Application for Information on SPCA-Kanpur Shelter/Hospital & People For Animals Kanpur NGO Unit under RTI Act 2005 of India

Please provide me information/documents for the below mentioned:

1) Grants (Regular, Shelter, ABC, Ambulance, Natural Calamity Relief Grants) given to SPCA-Kanpur Shelter & Hospital (Near Raipurwa Thana Kanpur) from Year-January’ 2013 to June’ 2020 with their “Utilization Certificate” & Expenditure details of those Grants given.

2) Grants (Regular, Shelter, ABC, Ambulance, Natural Calamity Relief Grants) given to PFA-People For Animals- “Kanpur NGO Unit” (PFA-Kanpur NGO) that has been operating at SPCA-Kanpur Shelter & Hospital (Near Raipurwa Thana Kanpur) from Year-2013 to till date presently Year-2020 presently with their “Utilization Certificate” & Expenditure details of those Grants given.

3) People for Animals Kanpur NGO Unit, Registration Details & details of Incharge of this PFA-Kanpur NGO Unit details.

4) Inspection details/documents done by AWBI-Animal Welfare Board of India on this PFA-Kanpur NGO i.e. People for Animals Kanpur NGO unit from Year-2013 to till date i.e. Year-2020.

5) Inspection details/documents done by AWBI-Animal Welfare Board of India on this SPCA-Kanpur Shelter & Hospital near Raipurwa Thana Kanpur from Year-2013 to till date i.e. Year-2020.

6) Information on FCRA of PFA-Kanpur NGO i.e. People for Animals Kanpur NGO Unit from the Year-2013 to Year-2020.

7) Information on ABC i.e. Animal Birth Control Grants given by AWBI-Animal Welfare Board of India to Kanpur Authorities, NGO'S & Shelter's from Year-2013 to Year-June’ 2020 with their “Utilization Certificate” & Expenditure detail's.

8) Information on FCRA of SPCA-Kanpur Shelter/Hospital (Near Raipurwa Thana Kanpur) from the Year-2013 to Year-2020

2. Shri Narender Kumar, Under Secretary (A.6) & CPIO, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi vide letter dated 24.08.2020, transferred RTI Application u/s 6(3) to The Secretary, Animal Welfare Board of India, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad and marked a copy to the Appellant. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.10.2020. The First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated 06.10.2020, forwarded the Appeal to concerned First Appellate Authority.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

3. The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide true and complete information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

4. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.

5. The Respondent submitted that first reply qua the instant RTI Application has been sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.09.2020. The contents of the same are as under:

Ans.1 to 6 : As per the available records, the Board has not recived any application for financial assistance form SPCA Kanpur Shelter & Hospital from January 2013 to June 2020 under the Scheme of AWBI. Hence, the information sought is not available with the Board.

6. She further submitted that Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and People for Animal (PFA), Kanpur, does not exist and hence no information is available in their office qua the instant RTI Application.

7. The Commission interjected and quizzed the Respondent that whether they have given this reply to the Appellant qua the instant RTI Application, to which the Respondent replied in negative.

8. Upon being queried by the Commission whether the First Appeal has been adjudicated or not, the Respondent submitted that First Appeal has been adjudicated on 13.03.2021. The contents of the same are as under

The applicant has sought information on the SPCA Kanpur which is not maintained in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, The Animal Welfare Board of India was requested to provide the information if available with them. It is observed that PIO has provided the information through speed post.

9. A written submission has been received by the Commission from Dr. S.K. Dutta, Secretary & AA, vide letter dated 31.03.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:

With reference to the above cited subject, it is stated that as per the directions of the CIC, the following information is furnished hereunder:

Sl. No. CIC Hearing No. File No. Date of RTI appln. and Date of Receipt Reply date [Copies attached) Appeal date Reply to Appeal date 1 115692/4.3.22 25-196/2020-21/RTIMIS AWBIC/R/T/21/00019 & DOAHD/R/E/20/000409 03.02.2021 1.3.2021 19.1.2021 3.3.2021 2 106997/4.3.22 25-55/2020-21/RTI 02.11.2020/20.11.20 5.12.2020 7.12.2020 4.1.2021 3 106286/4.3.22 25-56/2020-21/RTI 28.10.2020/20.11.20 5.12.2020 512.2020 4.1.2021 4 105870/4.3.22 25-38/2020-21/RTI 16.10.2020/26.10.20 24.11.2020 27.11.20 26.12.20 5 137573/4.3.22 35-38/2020-21/RTI DOAHD/R/E/20/000252 and DOAHD/R/E/20/000255 20/21.07.2020 received from DAHD letter dated 24.08.2020 on 3.9.2020 35.09.2020 1.10.2020 disposed by Ministry 6 137534/4.3.22 25-38/2020-21/RTI DOAHD/R/E/20/000252 and DOAHD/R/E/20/000255 20/21.07.2020 received from DAHD letter dated 24.08.2020 on 3.9.2020 25.09.2020 1.10.2020 disposed by Ministry

10. It is submitted that the applicant has sought voluminous, vague and third party information.

Decision:

11. The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is extremely cumbersome and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. As it appears it would be impossible for the public authorities to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the CPIOs to correctly apply their mind to decipher what information can be provided or what should be exempted. Moreover, in the instant RTI Application, the Appellant has sought for a multitude of details from several departments, the Appellant should be aware of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. Even if the Commission were to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant in his Second Appeal, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have not only to 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 the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay [(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 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.”

12. Having observed as above, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.

13. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes that the reply provided by the Respondent in response to the instant RTI Application is inadequate and inappropriate, hence, the Commission directs the present CPIO to provide a revised and categorical reply to the Appellant in the light of the submission made during the hearing, with a copy marked to the Commission, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

14. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.

15. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

16. The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.