Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Baby Viyana Berwal vs Khadi & Village Industries Commission on 27 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/2023/648280

Ms. Baby Viyana Berwal                                           निकायतकताग /Complainant
                                       VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Khadi & Village Industries Commission                       ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

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                      :    21.02.2023
PIO replied on                                :    13.03.2023
First Appeal filed on                         :    21.03.2023
First Appellate Order on                      :    30.03.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on               :    13.10.2023

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

"From the desk of Baby Viyana Berwal, Brand Ambassador, Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds, with OIPA: Indian People for Animals, wants to know Gandhian Ethics, Ideology, Philosophy and vision, related to the following along with activities, items approved by KVIC, and resolution passed: A). Trademark Classification 1 for Agriculture, horticulture and forestry. B). Trademark Classification 5 for Preparation for destroying vermin. C). Trademark Classification 13 for Firearms, ammunition and projectiles, explosives.

D). Trademark Classification 18 for Whips: whereas Catapult was ban by KVIC E). Trademark Classification 20 for Ivory, whalebone, shell, amber. F). Trademark Classification 28 for Decorations for Christmas trees. G). Trademark Classification 29 for Meat, fish, poultry, eggs. H). Trademark Classification 31 for Live Animals.

1). Trademark Classification 33 for Alcoholic beverages. J). Trademark Classification 34 for Tobacco, smoker articles.

Supply point wise KVIC approved activities at present on the above said activities. Supply point wise KVIC approved activities in past on the above said activities. Supply point wise KVIC approved activities proposed on the above said activities.

Supply complete details of Ivory stock with KVIC and year wise purchase and trade, related to ivory, along with any relaxation obtained. Supply action taken of WCCB Advisory No. 4 of 2020-2021, along with copies of all communication.

Supply action taken on the proposal, related to Honey Bee, adopted as a National Insects of India, along with protection cover under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972."

The CPIO, Khadi & Village Industries Commission vide letter dated 13.03.2023 replied as under:-

Point No. 1 to 3:-The purpose and main object of registering the Trade Marks under various classes is to prevent others from registering the said word marks "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. It is also clarified that though KVIC has trademark registration for the aforesaid marks under aforesaid classes, KVIC is not engaged in the production/trade or promotion of these products which are against Gandhian values. Point No. 4:-- The requested information is not specific. Point No.5:-Correspondence between Public Authorities, which cannot be parted under Section 8(1) (j) of RTI, Act-2005.

Point No.6:-The concerned matter comes under the purview of Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Govt. of India; hence it is requested to pursue the matter with MoEF&CC."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 30.03.2023 held as under:-

"On thorough examination of appeal alongwith relevant documents, it is observed that the appellant has made application dated 21.02.2023 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/BVB/7732/22-23/2749 dated 10.03.2023 has provided the information.

However, on examining the appeal alongwith the reply of CPIO, KVIC, Mumbai, it has been observed that the CPIO replied under point no. 4 of RTI application that "the requested information is not specific", which is found incorrect. Hence, the CPIO may furnish suitable information, and if it is not related to KVIC, the same may be informed to the appellant within the 10 working days from the receipt of this order after following the provisions contained in the RTI Act-2005."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 13.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO, KVIC reiterating the facts stated hereinabove about the replies sent to the Complainant. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Complainant: Not present Respondent: Smt. Pranita Tamhane - Director and Shri Sachiv Verma - Senior Executive, Legal were present during hearing through video conference.

Respondent present during hearing stated that appropriate response had been duly furnished to the Complainant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Upon careful examination of the facts of the case and upon hearing averments of the Respondent present during hearing, it is noted that the Respondent had replied appropriately, in consonance with the legal provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant has not sought any specific information nor chosen to buttress the instant case. Since the Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which can be adjudicated is whether there was any deliberate or willful concealment of information. From the records of the case, it appears that the reply sent by the Respondent is in consonance with the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.

It is relevant to note the observation 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, 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. .. 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, the Commission is of the opinion that since information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.

The case 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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)