Central Information Commission
Prem Prakash Prajapati vs Food Safety And Standard Authority Of ... on 16 October, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No. CIC/FSSAI/A/2017/109798
CIC/FSSAI/A/2017107015
Date of Hearing : 23.08.2017
Date of Decision : 03.10.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Prem Prakash Prajapati
Respondent : PIO /FSSAI
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.10.2016, 02.11.2016
PIO replied on : 09.11.2016, 05.12.2016
First Appeal filed on : 30.11.2016, 19.12.2016
First Appellate Order on : 28.12.2016, 29.12.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 14.02.2017, 01.02.2017
CIC/FSSAI/A/2017/109798
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 24.10.2016, the appellant sought :
1. Copy of section/subsection/Rule and Regulation of FSS Act, 2006 mentioning that other accreditation agency are to be recognised by FSSAI for notifying food laboratories of food sample under FSS Act.
2. Copy of the document issued by FSSAI that NABL is recognised by FSSAI for notifying food laboratories for analysis of food samples under FSS act.
CPIO vide letter dated 09.11.2016 furnished information as available on record. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.11.2016. The FAA vide order dated 28.12.2016 upheld the decision of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Page 1 of 5CIC/FSSAI/A/2017107015 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 02.11.2016, the appellant sought copy of the document mentioning the ground on that basis an accreditation body is recognised by FSSAI and a copy of document on that basis FSSAI write as "NABL accredited" instead of "Lab accredited as per ISO/IEC-17025" while NABL is a trade name. CPIO vide letter dated 05.12.2016 informed the appellant that as per section 43(1) of FSSA,2006 The Food Authority may notify food laboratories and research institutions accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories or any other accreditation agency for the purposes of carrying out analysis of sample by the Food Analysts under this Act", Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal. The FAO vide order dated 29.12.2016 upheld the decision of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The parties are present and heard at length. Since the subject matter of the captioned appeals is same, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
In Appeals No. CIC/FSSAI/A/2017/109798, CIC/FSSAI/A/2017107015 the Appellant states that inconclusive information was furnished to him and the reasons for conferring monopolistic status on National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) as well exclusion of other food testing accrediting bodies were divulged by the PIO. Per contra, the PIO states that the queries have been responded to adequately and apart from factual information already furnished, there is nothing available on record to satiate the Appellant.
Decision:
It would be in fitness of things if the larger and germane issue involved herein is analysed dispassionately. The grievance of Appellant whereof the present appeals arise is twofold. Firstly, the Appellant wants to explore the statutory basis of conferring a monopolistic status on National Accreditation Board of Laboratories (NABL) for certifying the food testing laboratories across India for the execution of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Secondly, he seeks reasons for non inclusion of other internationally accredited laboratories for the procedure of food testing as laid down in Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. In this backdrop, the appellant filed present RTI applications while Page 2 of 5 exploring the legal sanctity of the NABL as well as the monopolistic privilege conferred upon it.
Before delving in the issue, it would be profitable to refer to Section 43 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Section 43 - Recognition and accreditation of laboratories, research institutions and referral food laboratory (1) The Food Authority may notify food laboratories and research institutions accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories or any other accreditation agency for the purposes of carrying out analysis of samples by the Food Analysts under this Act.
(2) The Food Authority shall, establish or recognise by notification, one or more referral food laboratory or laboratories to carry out the functions entrusted to the referral food laboratory by this Act or any rules and regulations made thereunder.
(3) The Food Authority may frame regulations specifying--
(a) the functions of food laboratory and referral food laboratory and the local area or areas within which such functions may be carried out;
(b) the procedure for submission to the said laboratory of samples of articles of food for analysis or tests, the forms of the laboratory's reports thereon and the fees payable in respect of such reports; and
(c) such other matters as may be necessary or expedient to enable the said laboratory to carry out its functions effectively.
The Appellant is aggrieved with the statute itself when he seeks reasons for conferment of exclusive operational jurisdiction to NABL as enumerated in Section 43(1). The Appellant while asserting on the expression „National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories or any other accreditation agency' places significance on the latter part. It is his contention that the respondent FSSAI has not considered the words „or any other accreditation agency‟ while conferring monopolistic status to NABL.
Page 3 of 5However, as per PIO, the decision to accredit NABL is a statutory policy and no reasons thereof can be sought from FSSAI, which is an executive agency. The PIO seeks to answer the second grievance of the Appellant with the same logic, that the issue of empanelment or non empanelment of any international accrediting laboratory is within legislative realm.
The Commission, however, finds force in submission of the Appellant. The language of Section 43(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is clear. By no stretch of imagination, it can be concluded from the said provision that NABL is contemplated to be the sole agency for extending accreditation to laboratories for the purposes of carrying out analysis of samples by the Food Analysts under the Act. The pith and substance of the act of recognizing only NABL accredited food testing laboratories is essentially an Executive decision as the legislature has kept it open to consider any other agency. The intent of legislature is unambiguously clear. Thus, the decision to not grant recognition to non NABL accredited laboratories is essentially an Administrative decision of the FSSAI, which brings the decision under the purview of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Apart from the said provision, the right of appellant to know has another dimension. The Appellant being owner of a non NABL accredited food testing laboratory has a reason to know as to why one accreditation agency has been selected.
In essence, the grievance of Appellant w.r.t. recognition of NABL accredited laboratories and non recognition of other internationally accredited laboratories happen to be facets of the same issue. Both the grievances couched as queries can be suitably answered by explaining the reasons behind the decision of FSSAI as the executing agency of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Accordingly, the respondent public authority is directed to convey the reasons for considering only NABL & not considering any other agency as provided in the Section 43(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The same shall be communicated to the Appellant within 4 weeks of receipt of this order.
The Commission hastens to clarify that the preceding discussion is meant to assess the Appellant‟s right to know and in no way the same be construed as an opinion on the decision of FSSAI to regulate the process of accreditation, which essentially falls in the realm of legislature and executing authority.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-
Page 5 of 5