Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Department Of Ayush on 2 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग,मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/AYUSH/C/2023/602683
Shri Naresh Kadyan शिकायतकर्ता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of AYUSH ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024
Date of Decision : 28.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 14.10.2022
PIO replied on : 28.10.2022
First Appeal filed on : 30.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : Dec. 2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"As per section 74 of Indian Evidence Act, read with section 4 of RTI Act, all public documents be in public domain, under 76 of Indian Evidence Act, read with RTI Act, supply all communications, policy, guidelines, circulars, advisories and file notings, with present status, action taken, related to
1. DOAHD/E/2022/00859: DHLTH/E/2022/15054: MINHA/E/2022/16851: DOCOM/E/2022/03241: GOVGJ/E/2022/23743
2. The Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, wherein definition of animals is given, and approved.
As per sub-regulation 2.5.1 (a) animal means an animal belonging to any of the species specified below:
(i) Ovines (sheep).
(ii) Caprines (goats or goat-antelopes).
(iii) Suillines (pig family).
(iv) Bovines (ox and cow including buffalo).
(v) Domestic Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and includes poultry and fish.
The slaughtering of animals of any other species other than the one listed above is not permissible under the FSS Act and Regulations, like dog and camel, which is not Page 1 of 4 covered, but beef and veal is covered, 6 times beef repeatedly used, besides 14 times in the compendium.
3. The Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, under the provision of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, may be amended, excluding cow progeny, under the explanation of bovine animals.
4. Explain view of the Animals Welfare Board of India, FSSAI, APEDA, keeping in view, religious feelings of Hindu community and their mandate, about beef and veal.
5. Describe beef and veal with animal species from which we can get it.
6. Explain bovine animals, which species of animals, covered under it.
7. Complete list of cow slaughtering ban and open areas, including state and UTS.
8. Complete list of National Emblems, animals, birds, reptiles, trees, flowers, insects, rivers, ponds, marine animals, heritage animals and under which rules and regulation, they are adopted and declared, explain the benefits of National status as well.
9. Status of Cow progeny, explaining panchgavya with their qualities and values, all around Ayurveda, nature therapy, Homeopathy, allopathy including research papers."
The CPIO, Ministry of Ayush vide letter dated 28.10.2022 replied as under:-
"i.to viii. The sought information is not under the purview of this Ministry. Hence, it is suggested that you may directly contact the concerned public authority for desirable information through separate applications in accordance with the Para 3(iii) of guidelines prescribed by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training (OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12 th June, 2008) (Copy Enclosed).
ix. There is no information available in the Drug Policy Section of the Ministry of Ayush on this subject. Therefore, the RTI application is being partially transferred under Section 6 (3) to the CCRAS, CCRH, and CCRYN with a request to provide the information directly to the applicant under intimation to this Ministry and can be dispose off this matter against the relevant fee as under subsection (1) of Section 7, of RTI act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated Dec.2022 stated as under:-
"3. WHEREAS for point i, to viii, the sought information is not under the purview of this Ministry. Hence, it is suggested that you may directly contact the concerned public authority for desirable information through separate applications in accordance with the Para 3(iii) of guidelines prescribed by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training (OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12th June, 2008). For point ix. There is no information available in the Drug Policy Section of the Ministry of Ayush on this subject. Therefore, the RTI application is being partially transferred under Section 6 (3) to the CCRAS, CCRH, and CCRYN with a request to provide the information directly to the applicant under intimation to this Ministry and can be dispose off this matter against the relevant fee as under subsection (1) of Section 7, of RTI act, 2005.
4. WHEREAS the applicant was given an opportunity by the undersigned to attend the hearing scheduled on 21/12/2022 at 04:30 pm to present his point of view. During the hearing, the appellant expressed concern over the reply given by the Page 2 of 4 research councils under Ministry of Ayush that there is no any specific research with regard to Panchgavya. However, he agreed with the stand taken by CPIO that only information available with him can be shared under RTI Act, 2005.
5. WHEREAS the undersigned is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided since CPIO can only furnish information which is available in record and clarifications/opinions/interpretations are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. However, appellant is free to approach public authorities to redress his grievance and can submit any new proposals directly which are not covered under the scope the RTI Act, 2005.
6. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the Ministry of Ayush in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 21.11.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Ministry of Ayush reiterating the above facts and adding that the prayers sought by the Complainant do not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act. He has further stated that the issue related to imposing ban on panchgavya for trading and consumption as medicine as referred by the Complainant is a policy decision of the Government, not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Likewise the Respondent contended that the assumptions of the applicant about the absence of research in Panchgavya is ill conceived.
Another written submission dated 22.11.2024 has been filed by the Central Council for Research and Ayurvedic Sciences[CCRAS] stating that they had duly informed the Applicant vide letter dated 21.11.2022 that no information is available with the CCRAS.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Complainant: Not present Respondent: Shri Abdul Sadiq Khan - CPIO, Ayush Bhawan; Smt. Renu Rajan- CPIO, Smt. Shruti Khandelwal and Shri Rakesh Kumar- CCRAS; Shri M L Meena - CPIO, Dr. Debashish Pande and Shri M C Sharma - Ministry of Ayush were present during hearing.
The Respondents stated that information available on record with respect to the Complainant's queries, had been duly provided to him, within the limits of permissibility, as laid down in the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon examining the facts of the case, it is noted that the queries raised by the Complainant have been appropriately responded by the Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, by furnishing information from available official records, as permissible under the Act. The Respondents from Ministry of Ayush and CCRAS are directed to send a copy of their written submissions dated 21.11.2024 and Page 3 of 4 22.11.2024 to the Complainant within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent PIOs shall submit their respective compliance reports before the Commission within one week thereafter.
In view of the fact that the queries raised by the Complainant have been duly answered and the Complainant has chosen to file this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which is left for adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the records of the case at hand and averments of the Respondent, it appears that the Respondent has sent information available on records thereby negating any attempt at deliberate suppression of information. Since the information furnished by the Respondent is in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and did not suffer from any legal infirmity, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...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." In the given circumstances, in the absence of wilful or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case, the Commission finds no ground for further action under Section 18 of the RTI Act in this case.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)