Under Section 18 RTI Act, Commission cannot direct disclosure of denied information; jurisdiction limited to penalizing mala fide denial under Section 20. Repeated complaints with non-appearance abuse process.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 18 and 20 - Complaint under Section 18 - Jurisdiction of Commission - Commission has no power to direct disclosure of information denied to complainant; can only impose penalty under Section 20 if denial is mala fide - Sections 18 and 19 serve different purposes and remedies; one cannot substitute the other. (Paras 17, 19)

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Abuse of process - Repeated filing of complaints followed by deliberate non-appearance amounts to abuse of process and unnecessary consumption of public time and resources - Right to information must be exercised bona fide. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
Complainant filed multiple RTI applications seeking detailed information on captive animals, performing animals, transportation protocols, recognitions, exemptions, and status reports from public authority responsible for zoo regulations. CPIO responded that much information was not available, outside mandate, vague, or on website. FAA upheld responses. Complainant filed complaints under Section 18 alleging denial of information. During hearing, complainant absent despite notice; respondent submitted information provided as available.

Findings of Court:
No infirmity or violation of RTI Act by respondent; appropriate replies provided; no mala fide denial warranting penal action.

Issues: Whether Commission under Section 18 can direct information disclosure; whether denial by public authority was mala fide; whether complainant's conduct amounted to abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi: Commission lacks jurisdiction under Section 18 to order disclosure of denied information; limited to checking for intentional denial before penalty under Section 20. Absence and repeated filings without diligence indicate lack of bona fides.

Result: All complaints dismissed.

Table of Content
1. rti requests on animal welfare and cza compliance denied as unavailable (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. hearing facts: respondent provided available information (Para 11)
3. complainant absent; no rti violation by authority (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. section 18 complaints limited; no mala fide denial found (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

के(cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:6981),मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, New Delhi – 110067 िशकायत सं(cid:6990)या / Complaint No. (As Per Annexure)

Naresh Kadyan …िशकायतकता(cid:6981)/Complainant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Evaluation &

Monitoring Asst., Central Zoo …(cid:7079)ितवादीगण/Respondent Authority (M/o. Environ ., Forests & Climate, New Delhi Relevant dates emerging from the Complaints:

Sl. Complai Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Complaint No. nt Application CPIO’s First FAA’s Reply Appeal Order

1. 613008 11.01.2024 08.02.2024 Nil 16.02.2024 Nil. 2. 613309 08.01.2024 16.02.2024 Nil. 16.02.2024 Nil. 3. 19.03.2024 Not on Nil. Not on Nil.

625650 record record

4. 06.09.2024 Not on Nil. Not on Nil.

651527 record record

5. 17.02.2024 Not on Nil. Not on Nil.

651724 reocrd record

6. 17.02.2024 Not on Nil. Not on Nil.

652516 reocrd record

7. 05.09.2024 Not on Nil. Not on Nil.

654677 reocrd record Note – The above-mentioned Complaint have been clubbed together for decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.

Date of Hearing: 05.02.2026 Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner Shri P R Ramesh O R D E R Complaint No. CIC/CZAUR/C/2024/613008

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Supply complete list with present status, species-gender-age wise, copies of all recognised establishments with the CZA, are removed meat animals - performing animals from the display of public view, entering with ticket, and rest animals in captivity, registered with AWBI, as they are not exempted, restoring their five freedoms, along with adopted animals.

2. Status reports of all complaints lodged with action taken, copies needed to follow up.

3. Coordination between CZA, AWBI, NTCA, NBA with WCCB, supply copies.

4. Complete list and copies of exemption under section 22 of PCA Act, 1960, related to display as performing animals in Zoo.

- Naresh Kadyan, Master Trainer in Animal Welfare to Govt. of India

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1. “..Information desired by the applicant is not available with this public authority.

The question of housing and display of performing animals in a zoo arises only in case of Circus by virtue of its inclusion in the definition of 'zoo' under section 2(39) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, with effect from April 1, 2003.

Para 11(2) of the Schedule in Rule 10 under the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009, notified by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under clause (f) and (g) sub-section (1) of section 63 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 vide G.S.R.807(E) dated November 10, 2009, does not permit any physical handling or performances by animals as part of educational activity in a ZOO.

2. The applicant may please specify the information required as the text of the existing request for information is extremely vague in nature.

3. The applicant may please specify the information required as the text of the existing request for information is extremely vague in nature.

4. As per provisions of section 27 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, nothing contained in the Chapter V of the Act shall apply to any animals kept in any zoological garden or by any society or association which has for its principal object the exhibition of animals for educational or scientific purposes. Hence, the question of providing information desired by the applicant does not arise…”

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1521

Under Section 18 RTI Act, Commission cannot direct disclosure of denied information; jurisdiction limited to penalizing mala fide denial under Section 20. Repeated complaints with non-appearance abuse process.

Login now and unlock premium legal research