Central Information Commission
Mr.A Ramanathan vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 25 November, 2011
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, Room No. 305 B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Kama Place
New Delhi
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001203
Name of Appellant : Sh. A. Ramanathan
(The Appellant was not present)
Name of Respondent : D/o Agriculture
(Represented by Ms. J. C. Bain, Dy.
Secretary (IN), Sh. H. P. Singh, Law
Officer & Dr. Ramesh Kumar, Dy.
Commissioner (INM)
The matter was heard on : 24.11.2011
ORDER
The appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the order of the FAA dated 15.06.2011, Sh. A. Ramanathan. The Appellant had filed an RTI application dated 12.04.2011, in which he sought the following information: "Whether Traders importing Potassium Chloride which are not intended to be used as fertilizer by Paying countervailing duties for sale to Industrial Consumers are required to hold licence under FCO".
Ms. J. C. Bain, Dy. Secretary / CPIO (INM) vide letter dated 18.05.2011 informed the Appellant as follows: "It is informed that MOP (Potassium Chloride) is specified as fertilizers in ScheduleI, Part A of FCO. Clause 25 of FCO says no person shall, except with prior permission of Central Government and subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by such Government, sell or use fertilizer, for purposes other than fertilization for increasing crop productivity. Under Clause 8 of FCO the Ministry is granting certificate of Registration for industrial dealership. But as per policy, the ministry is granting certificate of Registration only for sale of Urea."
Not satisfied with the reply the Appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), requesting him to direct the PIO to furnish the information sought for in his RTI application Sh. Sanjay Vikram Singh, Jt. Secretary (INM) / FAA vide his order dated 15.06.2011 held that the PIO has provided information as per the existing provision of the Fertilizer Control Order (FCO) in response to the limited information provided by the Appellant. The FAA held that the RTI is not the appropriate forum for detailed examination of the case and a more detailed examination is possible only if the facts of the case are to be provided.
The Commission finds no reason to disagree with the response of the FAA. The Appellant through his RTI application is in fact seeking an opinion or interpretation from the Respondent which is not 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, the decision of the FAA is upheld.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 25.11.2011 Authenticated true copy (D. C. Singh) Dy.Registrar Copy to:
1. Sh. A. Ramanathan, Chamber No. 83, Madurai Dist. Court, Madurai 625 020 Tamil Nadu
2. The Public Information Officer, D/o Agriculture & Cooperation, M/o Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority, /o Agriculture & Cooperation, M/o Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi