Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Khadi & Village Industries Commission on 29 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/KVICO/C/2023/602893
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Khadi & Village Industries Commission
Date of Hearing : 24.01.2025
Date of Decision : 24.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25.10.2022
PIO replied on : 14.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : 30.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : 20.12.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 17.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 25.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"The broad objectives that the KVIC has set before it are...
1. The social objective of providing employment.
2. The economic objective of producing saleable articles.
3. The wider objective of creating self-reliance amongst the poor and building up of a strong rural community spirit.
Some of the major functions of KVIC are...
The KVIC is charged with the planning, promotion, organisation and implementation of programs for the development of Khadi and other village industries in the rural areas in coordination with other agencies engaged in rural development wherever necessary. Its functions also comprise building up of a reserve of raw materials and implements for supply to producers, creation of common service facilities for processing of raw materials as semi-finished goods and provisions of facilities for marketing of KVI products apart from organisation of training of artisans engaged in these industries and encouragement of co-operative efforts amongst them. To promote the sale and marketing of khadi and/or products of village industries or handicrafts, the KVIC may forge linkages with established marketing Page 1 agencies wherever feasible and necessary. The KVIC is also charged with the responsibility of encouraging and promoting research in the production techniques and equipment employed in the Khadi and Village Industries sector and providing facilities for the study of the problems relating to it, including the use of non-conventional energy and electric power with a view to increasing productivity, eliminating drudgery and otherwise enhancing their competitive capacity and arranging for dissemination of salient results obtained from such research. Further, the KVIC is entrusted with the task of providing financial assistance to institutions and individuals for development and operation of Khadi and village industries and guiding them through supply of designs, prototypes and other technical information. In implementing KVI activities, the KVIC may take such steps as to ensure genuineness of the products and to set standards of quality and ensure that the products of Khadi and village industries do conform to the standards.
The KVIC may also undertake directly or through other agencies studies concerning the problems of Khadi and/or village industries besides research or establishing pilot projects for the development of Khadi and village industries.
The KVIC is authorized to establish and maintain separate organisations for the purpose of carrying out any or all of the above matters besides carrying out any other matters incidental to its activities.
Classification of goods and services, under Class 13 of Trademark, carrying activities, related to Firearms, ammunition and projectiles, explosives, fireworks, which seems to be violent, against Gandhian values, whereas KVIC tendered false affidavits, to get trademark, supply complete details and copies of explosives licenses, applied and obtained with present status by the KVIC, up-to-date."
The CPIO, Khadi & Village Industries Commission vide letter dated 14.11.2022 replied as under:-
2. In this context, it is to inform that KVIC on various occasions while replying to the RTI queries had clarified that the purpose and main object of registering the Trade Marks under various classes is to prevent others from registering the said word mark "KHADI" or its formative marks "Khadi India", "Khadi Bharat" etc. and misuse the same by dealing in the products covered under those classes which are against the Gandhian ideology and coming under negative list.
3. It was also clarified that though KVIC has trademark registration for the aforesaid marks under the aforesaid classes, KVIC is not engaged in the production / trade or promotion of these products which are against Gandhian values. The products, which are not coming under the negative list or against Gandhian values, are coming within the purview of KVIC.
Page 2 In view of the above, the applicant may be informed suitably in the matter and also request him to refrain from seeking the information, which had already provided to him."
"This has reference to the Inter Section Note dated 26.10.2022 of the CPIO, forwarding therewith the information sought by Shri Naresh Kadyan.
2. In this context, it is to inform that KVIC on various occasions while replying to the RTI queries had clarified that the purpose and main object of registering the Trade Marks under various classes is to prevent others from registering the said word mark "KHADI" or its formative marks "Khadi India", "Khadi Bharat" etc. and misuse the same by dealing in the products covered under those classes which are against the Gandhian ideology and coming under negative list.
3. It was also clarified that though KVIC has trademark registration for the aforesaid marks under the aforesaid classes, KVIC is not engaged in the production / trade or promotion of these products which are against Gandhian values. The products, which are not coming under the negative list or against Gandhian values, are coming within the purview of KVIC.
In view of the above, the applicant may be informed suitably in the matter and also request him to refrain from seeking the information, which had already provided to him."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 20.12.2022 stated as under:-
"On thorough examination of appeal alongwith relevant documents, it is observed that the appellant has made application dated 25.10.2022 under RTI Act-05 to CPIO, KVIC, Mumbai for seeking information as mentioned therein. The CPIO, KVIC, Mumbai vide letter No. पी.आई.सी./आर.टी.आई. एक्ट-05/NK/7602/22-23/2399 dated 11.11.2022 has provided the information.
As CPIO has already provided the information, the appeal filed by appellant merits no consideration and is disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 07.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO, KVIC, Mumbai and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Page 3 Respondent: Ms. Praneeti Rahul Tamhane, Director and Mr. Sachiv Verma, Sr. Executive(Legal)- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Complainant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information Page 4 which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. 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."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) 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 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)