Central Information Commission
Mr.A Ramanathan vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 28 November, 2011
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, Room No. 305 B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Kama Place
New Delhi
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001194
Name of Appellant : Sh. A. Ramanathan
(The Appellant was not present)
Name of Respondent : D/o Agriculture
(Represented by Smt. J. C. Bain, Dy.
Secretary (INM), Sh. H. P.Singh, Law
Officer & Dr. Ramesh Kumar, Dy.
Commissioner)
The matter was heard on : 24.11.2011
ORDER
The present appeal has been filed against the order of the FAA, on the grounds that the exact information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application has not been provided to him.
Sh. A. Ramanathan, the Appellant had filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2011, in which he had requested for the following information: "Whether Substandard Potassium Chloride of low K20 content Imported by traders by Paying Countervailing duties for sale to Industrial Consumers will fall under FCO."
The PIO had vide letter dated 24.05.2011 replied to the Appellant as follows: "Please refer to you application dated 16.04.2011 seeking information regarding substandard Potassium Chloride whether it falls under FCO. It is informed that MOP of Potassium Chloride is specified in Schedule I as fertilizer/ Clause 19 of FCO strictly prohibits sale of fertilizers which are not of prescribed standard. Under clause 23(I)(C), the nonstandard fertilizers shall only be sold to the manufacturer of mixture of fertilizers or research farms of Government or Universities or such Bodies."
Not satisfied with the reply the Appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA vide his reply dated 15.06.2011 held that the PIO has provided requisite information as per the existing provisions of the Fertilizer Control Order in respect to the limited information provided by the Appellant in his RTI application and that the RTI is not the appropriate forum for detailed examination of the case. The FAA, accordingly dismissed the appeal with the observation that a more detailed examination may be possible only if detailed facts of the case is provided. Aggrieved with the reply the Appellant has filed the present appeal before the Commission.
[ During the hearing the Respondent submit that the reply of the Respondent is as per the provisions of the FCO, which is a public document.
Having heard the Respondent and perused the relevant documents on file the Commission is of the view that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the Appellant. The decision of the FAA is therefore upheld.
[ The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 28.11.2011 Authenticated true copy (D. C. Singh) Dy. Registrar Copy to:
1. Sh. A. Ramanathan, Chamber No. 83, Madurai Dist. Court, Madurai 625 020 Tamil Nadu
2. The Public Information Officer, D/o Agriculture & Cooperation, M/o Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority, /o Agriculture & Cooperation, M/o Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi