MCD veterinary officer fined Rs 25,000 over stray dog info delay

Reprimanding a veterinary officer for causing a delay in information on stray dogs, resulting in “unnecessary litigation and avoidable hardship” to the complainant, the Central Information Commission (CIC) recently imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 upon the officer and awarded a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the complainant.

Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari was hearing a complaint filed by a man who had not received any reply to his right to information (RTI) application concerning stray dogs, animal birth control programs, sterilisation and vaccination data, payments made to NGOs, etc.

“From the foregoing, Respondent’s determined and deliberate resistance to disclosure of information to the Appellant/Complainant and also for putting it particularly in the public domain, is established beyond any doubt,” the June 3 order read.

The information commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari held that despite repeated directions of the commission and the Supreme Court, the public authority has failed to place “substantial information” in the public domain.

‘No reply received’

The complainant had filed the RTI application online on December 29, 2022.

The RTI application filed by the complainant contained 29 points of inquiry; the focus of the said points remained on welfare and social requirements for survival of stray/street dogs and on details and functioning of animal welfare organisations.

The inquiries included details of all the animal welfare organisations with which the MCD (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) of specific area, Delhi, was working; the number of stray dogs caught for sterilisation every month; and the total number of street dogs that are actually sterilised and immunised.

Questions like the number of times the authorisation is given by the Committee to veterinary doctor to put to sleep critically ill, fatally injured or rabid dogs; animal kennels/shelters under the relevant area; the number of dogs that died a natural death in the past 24 months, etc., were also included

No reply was received from the CPIO regarding the application.

Consequently, the complainant filed the first appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on January 31, 2023. The order of the FAA was not produced in the judgement.

Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the complainant then approached the Central Information Commission with the second appeal on June 7, 2023.

First hearing before the CIC (April 9, 2025)

On the said date the commission took note of the updated reply filed by the PIO (Public Interest Officer) which contained point wise replies of the questions posed by the complainant in his application.

During the hearing the complainant urged that till that date no information had been provided to him by the officer concerned or the authorities and that he had received only the hard copy of the reply handed over to him during the hearing and the same was not seen by him before.

The complainant requested the commission that he was not interested in getting revised information from the concerned authorities, rather a penalty should be imposed on them, and that compensation should be awarded to him.

The complainant also stated that the directions should be given to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officer who was unable to explain the delay in providing reply to the complainant.

Story continues below this ad

Observations, directions of the first hearing

The Commission in its order on April 22, 2025, for the hearing held on April 9, 2025, stated that there was nothing on record to show that any reply was given to the complainant on his RTI application within the assigned time period as per the RTI Act.

It was noted by the commission that it was only at the stage of second appeal that the concerned officer had handed over the reply which was not even shared prior to the hearing.

The commission took the stance that the conduct of the officer concerned showed his mala fide (bad intention) intention in blocking the information under the RTI Act as the core contention raised by complainant in the appeal was “non-receipt of complete information from the PIO”.

Holding that the information sought by the complainant should have been put in public domain as per Section 4 of the RTI Act, the commission issued a show cause notice for the officer concerned.

Story continues below this ad

The said officer was asked show-cause in writing as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for violating the provisions of the RTI Act and why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him.

The said written submissions were directed to be sent to the commission within three weeks of the receipt of the order. Further, the FAA was directed to ensure compliance of the order.

‘Risk to life and limbs’

The complainant submitted that despite the previous order of the commission, the concerned authority had not provided complete and specific information to him.

It was also submitted by the complainant that officials of veterinary department, MCD, had been disclosing his personal details, to NGOs, dog feeders and private contractors engaged in dog catching operations.

Story continues below this ad

Consequently, he contended that he had allegedly been receiving repeated calls from unknown persons questioning and objecting to the complaints lodged by him regarding stray dogs, hence “causing harassment, intimidation and invasion of privacy” and thereby putting creating a “risk to his lives and limbs.”

It was additionally submitted that the disclosure of the information asked for in the RTI application would promote accountability and enable public scrutiny of activities funded by public money in the true spirit of the RTI Act

The complaisant also highlighted and that frequent complaints regarding unauthorised sheltering, feeding of stray dogs in residential premises, etc., have not been properly addressed by the veterinary department.

Lastly, the complainant requested the commission to enforce its previous directions where the concerned authority was directed to provide complete and accurate information as enquired for, action was ordered to be taken for the alleged non-compliance of the Commission’s order, and

Story continues below this ad

The complainant also prayed for fair compensation to be awarded to him.

‘No deliberate intention’

The officer concerned submitted that after the last order of the CIC, he had provided a revised point-wise reply to the complainant by letter dated May 26, 2025.

He mentioned that he had also filed a written submission in response to the show cause notice, stating that the RTI application in question had never been received in the office of the deputy director (veterinary services department).

Similarly, it was also submitted that neither the first appeal filed by the complainant nor its order in the present matter was received by the office of the deputy director and hence the lapse had occurred and that there had been no deliberate intention of the department to delay the RTI request.

Story continues below this ad

It was further mentioned that the zonal RTI portal was managed by the office of the assistant commissioner, who was responsible for forwarding RTI applications to the concerned departments and that in the present case, the application and the appeal were not received by this department.

The officer concerned also explained that he was not posted in the zone concerned during the period in question and was not associated with the same when the RTI was in process at the relevant time. `

At the end, it was prayed by the said officer that he was not responsible for the lapse, nor was the previous deputy director, as the cause of not responding had already been explained, and the CIC was requested to reconsider the matter.

‘Determined and deliberate resistance’

Primarily, the commission noted that the RTI application filed by the complainant remained unattended, and no reply was provided within the statutory period, and that even during the previous hearing, the officer concerned   was unable to provide a reply to the complainant before the hearing.

Story continues below this ad

On the submission regarding the RTI portal being managed by another branch, the commission pointed out that no material has been placed on record to establish that the RTI application was wrongly routed, that any effort was made to trace the application, or that any remedial action was initiated.

As per the commission, the officer concerned also failed to explain why substantial information sought by the complainant, “was either denied, stated to be unavailable, or furnished only after intervention by the commission.”

The commission held that the said officer stood in continued violation of the Supreme Court’s orders for upfront public disclosure, and that the authorities had avoided providing complete information even during the hearing and that no efforts were made to obtain information for the complainant or to put the same in the public domain.

It was further held by the commission that the authority’s “determined and deliberate resistance to disclosure of information” was proved beyond any doubt, and that the said conduct had resulted in unnecessary litigation and avoidable hardship to the complainant.

Story continues below this ad

A penalty of Rs 25000 was imposed by the commission on the officer concerned/veterinary officer for failure to furnish information within the prescribed time and for not complying with the provisions of the RTI Act. The said penalty amount was directed to be deducted from his salary.

Lastly, considering the “prolonged delay, the repeated pursuit of the matter” by the complainant, the “detriment caused due to deprivation of timely access to information” and “disclosure of his personal details to third parties”, the commission awarded a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the complainant.

The payment was directed to be paid within eight weeks from the present order.

The commission also directed the commissioner of the MCD to “undertake a comprehensive review of compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act in respect of the Veterinary Services Department” and that the complainant was at liberty to claim further compensation till disclosure of the information in the public domain.