Central Information Commission
Rajinder Kumar Ahuja vs Food Safety And Standard Authority Of ... on 28 May, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.:- CIC/FSSAI/C/2018/102119-BJ
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Ahuja
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Assistant Director (RCD),
Food Safety & Standards Authority of India
Regulatory Compliance Division, FDA Bhawan
Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2019
Date of Decision : 28.05.2019
Date of filing of RTI application 10.07.2017
CPIO's response 01.08.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 10.01.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 3 points regarding the status of the appeal dated 07/06/2017 against refusal of license of designated officer (Central) for Delhi and Rajasthan of M/s Modern Food Products, Rajasthan, reasons for refusing license without hearing and reasons for not hearing appeal by the CEO, FSSAI as Commissioner of Food Safety and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide his letter dated 01/08/2017 provided a point wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kr. Mishra, Assistant Director;Page 1 of 3
The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent informed the Commission that consequent upon the reply given by the CPIO, his Appeal was also answered on 24.10.2018 wherein he was informed that the scientific panel on oils and fats in its meeting on 31.08.2018 observed that the product of the Complainant was not nearest to category 2.2.2 fat spreads, dairy fat spreads and blended spreads because of the moisture being removed during preparation. The test report indicated high acid value with other similar products. The said product offered by the Complainant could not be considered for license.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, Page 2 of 3 advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 28.05.2019
Page 3 of 3