Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ankush Mahajan vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 8 April, 2021

                                 के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/PHRCI/A/2018/800101


Shri Ankush Mahajan                                          ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Pharmacy Council of India,                        ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ma Anandmayee Marg, Pocket A, Okhla Phase I,
Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110044
Through: None

Date of Hearing                      :    07.04.2021
Date of Decision                     :    08.04.2021
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   21.08.2018
PIO replied on                        :   14.09.2018
First Appeal filed on                 :   26.09.2018
First Appellate Order on              :   -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   16.11.2018
 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2018 seeking information whether M.Sc. Pharmaceutical Chemistry is considered eligible for registration as a pharmacist.

The PIO, Pharmacy Council of India, Delhi vide letter dated 14.09.2018 furnished a reply to the Appellant that M.Sc. Pharmaceutical Chemistry qualification is not approved by Pharmacy Council of India for the purpose of the registering as pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act, 1948.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.09.2018 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant alone participated in the hearing through video conference and contended that FAA replied belatedly, vide letter dated 08.12.2018. The Appellant has not submitted a copy of the FAA's order and sought time to place the same on record. Copy of FAA's order dated 08.12.2018 has since been received from the Appellant which reads as follows:

"...Your attention in this connection is invited to Section 32(2) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 according to which a person shall be entitled for registration as a pharmacist if he has passed an examination or possesses a qualification in pharmacy which is approved by the Pharmacy council of India..."

The FAA disposed off the First Appeal upholding the reply furnished by the PIO, in the light of the above observations.

During the course of hearing, the Appellant had placed reliance on Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and claimed that the FAA had erred in his decision.

The Commission is in receipt of an email from the Respondent whereby it has been contended that they missed attending the hearing on 07th April 2021 inadvertently, due to: i) Statutory Executive Committee Meeting on 30.03.2021,

ii) Meeting to discuss the policy for selection of PCI Inspectors on 30.03.2021 and iii) Statutory 111th Central Council Meeting of the PCI on 06th and 07th April 2021. In view of the above, the Respondents have regretted their absence and sought a pardon, asking for re-scheduling of the hearing.

Decision:

Upon perusal of the necessary records put forth by the parties, it is noted that the FAA's order dated 08.12.2018 is quite comprehensive and self sufficient, which answers the query raised by the Appellant. Contentions put forth by the Appellant indicate that he disputes the correctness of the information provided to him. Clearly, such an issue of disputing the information cannot be resolved under the scope of the RTI Act as has been held in numerous decisions. Reliance is placed on the decision dated 11.01.2013, of the Delhi High Court in the case of Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors. :

"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished..."

In the light of the above decision, the instant appeal is disposed off with no further directions.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) 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 3 of 3