के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/DOAHD/A/2024/112891/DAHDD N Muruganandam ….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 27.11.2025 Date of Decision : 02.12.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 14.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 01.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 28.12.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 22.05.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.04.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“1. How many species of dogs are banned in India and their names?

2. What is the name of the related laws and the sections?

3. What is the Penalty clause for the unlicensed pet owners of the banned dogs

4. How many bit incidents have happened by the banned dogs and treated in the hospitals in India For the past 5 years from 2018 to2022.

5. How many deaths happened because of the banned dogs in India for the last five years?

6. How many banned dog owners are punished due to the bits or deaths by the banned dogs in India for the last five years from 2018 to 2022?

7. If the breeding of the banned dogs is illegal what is the name of the law and its section?

8. How many banned dog owners are punished due to the illegal breeding of the banned dogs in India

9. What steps have been taken so far on the illegal breeding puppies?

10. Which Government department is responsible for regulating and for enforcing the acts?”

2. The CPIO vide its letter dated 01.11.2023 had given online reply to the Appellant, which states as under:

“1, 3, 6 and 8-The information sought is not available with the Board. 2- Not applicable. 4 and 5- The information sought is not available with the Board. However, the data regarding the dog bite cases may be available with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 6-Does not arise, 7- Not applicable. However, it is stated that the Central Government has enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog Breeding and Marketing) Res, 2017 which is implemented by the State Animal Welfare Board of the concerned State Government and UTs. 9 & 10. The State Animal Welfare Board of the concerned State Governments and UTs are responsible to take action against the illegal breeding of dogs as per the provision mentioned in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog Breeding and Marketing) Rules, 2017.”

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 22.05.2024 had disposed of the first appeal of the Appellant.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.

Respondent: Shri Surendra Singh Meena, Under Secretary present in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 22.04.2024 is not available on record.

Respondent confirms non-service.

6. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.

7. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

“In this regard, it is informed that RTI was filed on 14.09.2023 (copy enclosed) initially against PMO. PMO transferred the physical copy of RTI to Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying (DAHD) on 26.09.2023 (copy enclosed). RTI Section of DAHD created the online application (copy enclosed) of the physical RTI and the same was forwarded to Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) on 31.10.2023. The reply of RTI was provided by AWBI on 01.11.2023 (copy enclosed) on the onl