Central Information Commission
Nived V. Nair vs Central Drugs Standard Control ... on 27 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/CDSOK/C/2024/112617/CDSHQ.
Shri NIVED V. NAIR. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Central Drugs Standard Control Organization.
Date of Hearing : 24.02.2025
Date of Decision : 24.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 04.03.2024
PIO replied on : 02.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 29.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"(1) Provide information (considering the Sections 2(f), 2(j), and 6(1) of RTI Act 2005; and Office Memorandum of Department of Personnel & Training No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06 Oct 2015) regarding
(i) the generic names and their concerned recognized brands of drugs used for MOITAO conducting various types of contrast enhanced medical investigations in India which is approved by your office
(ii) the steps taken by your office inorder to control and regulate the production, storage, transportation and usage of those drugs mentioned above in point no.
(i) which is used for conducting various types of contrast enhanced medical investigations in India
(iii) the prescribed quantity (recommended dose) of those drugs mentioned above in point no. (i) which is used for conducting various types of contrast enhanced medical investigations in India."
Page 1 The CPIO, Assistant Drugs Controller, CDSCO(HQ) vide letter dated 02.04.2024 replied as under:-
"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 13/03/2024 and to say that As per information available/provided by the concerned division, CDSCO regulates safety, efficacy and quality of the Drugs, Cosmetics and Medical devices under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules. 1945 made there under.
CDSCO grants approval of manufacture import of new drugs for marketing in the country based on proper name, chemical name or INN. The information regarding approval status of New Drugs used for conducting contrast enhanced medical investigations is available on website on below mentioned link- cdscoonline.gov.in/CDSCO/Drugs."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
The revise Point wise reply as following:
Point. No.1 The information regarding approval status of New Drugs/Medical device (Generic names) use for conducting contrast enhanced medical investigations is available on CDSCO official website on below mention link:
www.cdscoonline.gov.in/CDSCO/Drugs https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/opencms/en/Approval new/Approved-New-Drugs/ https://cdscomdonline.gov.in/NewMedDev/ListOfApproved Devices Point. No.2 You may refer MDR Rules 2017 under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules made thereunder which is available on CDSCO official website i.e. www.cdsco.gov.in Point. No.3 You may refer leaflet or package insert (PRESCRIBING INFORMATION) which is available with drugs or public domain. In view of above, the CPIO has always acted reasonably & diligently with bonafide intent and do not have any intention to hide the information as sought by the applicant Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conferencing.
Page 2 Respondent: Mr. Ashok Yadav, ADC, Mr. C. Manivillavan, ADC and Mr. Mahesh Kumar- participated in the hearing.
The Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the information is not available on the official website of the respondent public authority.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Complainant. They reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that information sought by the Complainant is already available in public domain and can be accessed through the weblink given in their reply.
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 Page 3 direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "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 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."
xxx "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.
Page 4 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)