Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ravindra Bhaskar Thatte vs Department Of Agriculture & ... on 8 April, 2026

                            के ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं      ा /Second Appeal No.         CIC/DOA&C/A/2025/616526




Ravindra Bhaskar Thatte                                ....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम

CPIO,
Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare
New Delhi                                        ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Date of Hearing                   : 08/04/2026
Date of Decision                  : 08/04/2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                   Ashutosh Chaturvedi

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

RTI application filed on                  28/10/2024
CPIO replied on                           26/11/2024
First appeal filed on                     05/12/2024
FAA's order dated                         Not on Record
Second Appeal dated                       08/04/2025

Information sought

:

The appellant has filed RTI application dated 28/10/2024 seeking the following information:

"1. Regarding Shelf Life Study: (W.r.t S.O. 882 E dated 23 Feb 2021) Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/DOA&C/A/2025/616526 Page 1 of 4 a. Please provide the copy of protocol/guideline/SOP prescribed for shelf life study of Bio stimulant by CBC.

2. Regarding product Specifications: (W.r.t S.O. 3922 dated 12 Sept 2024) a. Please provide information regarding crops for which bio-efficacy trials has been conducted by the Bio stimulant manufacturers while submitting their application for G. b. Please provide the copy of the product specifications submitted by Bio stimulant manufacturer along with their form G application for their respective product...."

2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant on 26/11/2024 stated as under:

"1. The shelf life studies carried out by GLP/NABL accredited laboratories are acceptable for Inclusion of the product in Schedule VI of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.

2.The crops for the products included in Schedule VI of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 are already listed in the Schedule VI of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 as notified in the Gazette notification S.O. 3922 (E) dated 12th September, 2024.

3. Information sought regarding product specifications submitted by the manufacturers in Form G applications pertains to commercial confidence of a third party and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(d) of RTI Act, 2005

4. Inclusion of bio stimulant products in Schedule VI 'Part A' of FCO, 1985 is done with the approval of competent authority in accordance with extant provisions laid down in FCO, 1985, Gazette Notification No. S.O. 882 (E) dated 23.02.2021, Gazette Notification No. S.O. 1963 (E) dated 08.05.2024 and Gazette Notification No. S.O. 3922 (E) dated 12.09.2024. Applications for permanent registration of bio stimulants are examined as per the provisions of FCO, 1985 and placed before Sub technical committee (STC) and then before the Central Bio-stimulant Committee (CBC). Copy of decisions of STC and CBC, have already been furnished to you vide Department's letter no. 7-41/2024 (Fert Law/BSC) (154032) dated 14.11.2024...."

3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority order is not on Record.

4. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 08/04/2025.

5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present on VC Respondent: Subodh Kumar CPIO Department of Agriculture participated in the hearing in person The Appellant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that incomplete information has been given by the Respondent. The Respondent submits that they duly replied to the RTI application and provided all information available on record at that time to the Appellant.

DECISION Commission, on the basis of submission of parties during hearing and perusal of case records, observes that Appellant is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the concerned CPIO. Therefore, Commission directs the Respondent to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission within 7 days thereafter. In doing so, PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the appellant and same must be redacted as per section 10 of the RTI Act. No further action lies.

The Appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतु वदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 08.04.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/DOA&C/A/2025/616526 Page 3 of 4 Address of the Parties:

1. CPIO Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 110001

2. Ravindra Bhaskar Thatte Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/DOA&C/A/2025/616526 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)