Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Indian Veterinary Research Institute ... on 6 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2022/664998
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Indian Veterinary Research Institute (ICAR)
Date of Hearing : 03.01.2025
Date of Decision : 03.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.10.2022
PIO replied on : 20.10.2022
First Appeal filed on : 20.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : 11.11.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 09.12.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
1. Proper reply on letter pad with designation, on DOARE/E/2021/00078, with the all evidences and research as reply admitted PANCHGAVYA as medicinal qualities, confirming point wise as attached with DOARE/E/2021/00078, reply received from IVRI, Izatnagar.
2. Action taken on MOEAF/E/2022/02475, DOAHD/E/2019/00023, MOEAF/E/2019/00087, along with complete details about Panchgavya, Sustainable Use and Benefit Sharing, besides all efforts for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge, related to cow and their products, being Universal Heritage creature.
3. Rashtriya Kamdhenu Aayog uploaded following information, as per page 3 to 9, confirm point wise and item wise, as claimed by the Central Government.
4. Describe utility of Panchgavya as medicinal values, under Allopathy, Cowpathy, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Ayurveda, Unani etc. Page 1
5. Supply all communications, policy, guidelines, circulars, advisories and file notings, with present status, action taken on Panchgavya, as RTI application as attached, point wise reply required with proof."
The CPIO, Indian Veterinary Research Institute (ICAR) furnished reply dated 20.10.2022 as under:-
"Kindly attach the previous reply received from IVRI, as quoted by applicant in Point no.1."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 11.11.2022 stated as under:-
"This has reference to the RTI Appeal Registration No. IVTRI/A/E/22/00028 dated 20.10.2022 against IVTRI No.R/T/22/22/00010 dated 20.10.2022 on the subject cited above. In this connection, please find attached herewith the required information against point No.01 to 05 for your kind perusal.
1. ICAR-IVRI has not conducted or conducting any research work on medicinal qualities of Panchagavya.
2. ICAR-IVRI has not conducted or initiated any research work on Panchagavya. However, research work has been initiated at LPT Division, ICAR- Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar (Bareilly) UP to determine the various biological activities of Cow Urine under the institute project entitled "Evaluation of antimicrobial and immunomodulatory potential of Cow Urine". Under the project laboratory scale production of cow urine distillate (CUD) is being carried out from fresh urine collected from indigenous cow breeds (Sahiwal and Tharparkar). Cow Urine distillate was found to exhibit in vitro antibacterial activity against various Gram positive and Gram- negative bacterial strains tested by microtitre plate (MTP) method. Antimycotic activity was also detected but no antiviral or disinfectant activity was observed. Immunomodulatory activity and bio-enhancing activity also could not be conclusively established. Most of the minerals estimated in CUDs were found to be absent. A herbal dhoop formulation has also been standardized using fresh dung of indigenous cow breeds.
3. Since, ICAR-IVRI has not conducted any research work on as medicinal qualities of Panchagavya, the claims uploaded on Rashtriya Kamdhenu Ayog website, cannot be confirmed.
4. Since, no research has been conducted by ICAR-IVRI on medicinal values of Panchagavya, their utility under allopathy, Page 2 Cowpathy, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Ayurveda, Unani etc. cannot be described.
5. Since, ICAR-IVRI has neither conducted nor initiated any research work on Panchagavya, no communications, policy guidelines, circulars, advisories and file notings with present status, action taken on Panchagavya are available with ICAR- IVRI."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Ravikant Agarwal, Principal Scientist- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Complainant.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, Page 3 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)