Central Information Commission
Janardan Shankar Ghule vs Directorate Of Plant Protection ... on 11 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DPPQS/A/2017/138922
Janardan Shankar Ghule
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO/APPA(CIB&RC)
Directorate of Plant Protection,
Quarantine & Storage, Department of
Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage,
NH - 4, Faridabad - 121001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 10.01.2017
CPIO reply : Not on record
First Appeal : 14.03.2017
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 30.05.2017
Date of hearing : 23.08.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 10.01.2017 sought information on two points as under;
1. Whether Central Government was advised by the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee that boric acid is injurious to human beings/animals or plantations as an insecticide.
2. Whether the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee also advised the Central Government that boric acid is exempted u/s 38(1)(b) of the Insecticide Act, 1968. Copies of correspondence made by the Page 1 of 3 office of the Directorate of Plant Protection with the Central Government in the Ministry of Agriculture were also sought in the said RTI application.
The CPIO's reply or the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 30.05.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Dr. Archna Sinha,
Joint Director cum CPIO along with
Shri Vivek Narayan, Senior Adminsitrative Officer, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had never received the RTI application dated 10.01.2017. She further submitted that she received the RTI application through the first appellate authority only on 29.03.2017 and after that they had provided the requisite reply on 24.05.2017 to the appellant concerned. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
In view of the above, the respondent CPIO is directed to affirm on affidavit to the Commission that the above dated RTI application was never received by the public authority concerned within 07 days of the receipt of the order.
The appellant was not present to plead for this case.
Page 2 of 3On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the reply provided both by the respondent authority and by the first appellate authority is just, proper and comprehensive. Moreover, as the appellant was not present to contest this case, interference of the Commission is not called for.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharya (अ मताभ भ टाचाय) Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु त ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कु मार तलपा ) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date Page 3 of 3