Vishnu G. Karnataki vs Food Safety And Standard Authority Of ... on 24 April, 2025

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vishnu G. Karnataki vs Food Safety And Standard Authority Of ... on 24 April, 2025

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                      के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/FSSAI/A/2024/632271

Shri Vishnu G. Karnataki                                          ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Food Safety and Standard Authority of India             ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                           :   22.04.2025
Date of Decision                          :   22.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner            :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :            22.04.2024
PIO replied on                    :            03.06.2024
First Appeal filed on             :            27.05.2024
First Appellate Order on          :            21.06.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :            30.07.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.04.2024 seeking information on the following points with respect to deficiencies found during inspection of biscuit factory of Bunty Foods (I) Pvt. Ltd :-

"Therefore, I hereby request you to provide true & certified copies of: - A) Copy of show cause notice dated 27/06/2018. B) Copy of Response by FBO dated 03/07/2018. C) Copies of inspection of FBO dated 16/07/2018. D) Copies of the Lab test reports of Wheat Flour used. E) Copies of Wheat Flour: Purchase Order for Wheat Flour Or other than Maida, Delivery Challan Received of Wheat Flour/other than Maida, Payment to the party, Receipt from Party, and any other records of Wheat Flour/other than Maida - for manufacturing Parle-G biscuits."

The CPIO, Deputy Director vide letter dated 03.06.2024 replied as under:-

"With reference to the above-mentioned subject and references, this office would like to apprise you that, based on RTI application by the applicant, this office sent a Notice under section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Third party (Copy of the same was sent to applicant which returned to this office dated 31.05.2024 as it was unclaimed by the applicant). The third-party responded to the notice through a letter, received by this office on 31.05.2024. Considering the response of third party CPIO is of the opinion, not to disclose Page 1 of 2 the information sought in RTI application. In the view of the above RTI application by the applicant stands disposed of."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2024. The FAA, Director vide order dated 21.06.2024 held as under:-

"1. The appeal of Mr. Vishnu G Karnataki (hereafter referred as Appellant) is received under section 19 of the RTI Act 2005. The grounds of appeal as provided is "No Response Within the Time Limit."

2. After examination of the facts, In the instant case, since the matter pertains to third-party information, CPIO has followed the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and thereby issued an order vide file number FSSAI/R/2024- 25/Lic/Q1/465 dated 03/06/2024. Since the order has been issued, the appeal is disposed of."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Vaidehi Kalzunkar - CPIO/Dy. Director, Western Regional Office, FSSAI was present through video conference during hearing.

The Respondent reiterated that information available on record has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act. The Appellant was not present for the hearing.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information as available on record and as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Considering the fact that the response of the PIO is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act and the Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case at hand, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission