Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vishnu Karnataki vs Food Safety And Standard Authority Of ... on 30 January, 2026

                             के ीय सू चना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067


 File No: CIC/FSSAI/A/2024/640155

 Vishnu Karnataki                                              .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                              VERSUS
                                               बनाम

 CPIO
 FSSAI, FDA Bhawan Kotla Road,
 New Delhi-110002.                                        .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

 Date of Hearing                     :   29.01.2026
 Date of Decision                    :   30.01.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Jaya Varma Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

 RTI application filed on            :   02.06.2024
 CPIO replied on                     :   02.07.2024
 First appeal filed on               :   02.07.2024
 First Appellate Authority's order   :   16.08.2024
 2nd Appeal dated                    :   09.09.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.06.2024(online) seeking the following information:

"1) Copies of all correspondence/communication between RCD, Vigilance, FSSAI and Parle company.

2) Copies of all detailed investigations by the vigilance department of FSSAI. (3) Copies of correspondence/communication between nodal officer, FSSAI and RCD, Vigilance of FSSA.

(4) Copies of any internal documents or report generated by FSSAI while investing and/or discussing said grievances.

5) Refer Nodal officer's email dated 20/03/203, all copies of correspondence/communication between nodal officer, FSSAI and Vigilance Department. (Refer Exhibit No.-07)

6) The patterned, Tricky, and repeatably one and same unrelated response submitted to both grievances have NO specific dates for each action. Therefore, I hereby request you to provide copies of: -

a) As per news report, Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. & Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd.

Companies shut down in the month of July 2016.

Corrective action was taken by FSSAI against both companies as per FSS Act 2006, for misusing their licenses after closure? Corrective action was taken by FSSAI against the concerned authority who failed/ignored to conduct/carry an annual food inspection as per FSS Regulations Act 2011 Corrective action was taken by FSSAI against the concerned authority who failed/ignored to Generate/create an accurate & updated "Data-Base" of the FBOs having Central Licenses of the Western Region, as per FSS Regulations Act 2011

b) Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. & Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. renewed their licenses in the month of October 2018, despite the closure of the companies.

i) Corrective action was taken by FSSAI against both companies as per FSS Act 2006, for renewal & misusing their licenses after closure?

ii) Corrective action was taken by FSSAI against the concerned authority who renewed and issued their licenses after closure, as per FSS Act.

iii) Corrective action was taken by FSSAI against the concerned authority who renewed their both licenses as "Manufacturer and Re-Labeler" violating office memorandum dated 25/04/2013. (Refer Exhibit No.-09 and Exhibit No.-010)

c) Parle surrendered one license & other is active....

i) Why other license is Active despite of company closure?

ii) Corrective action was taken by FSSAI against the Parle company for second license being active by FSSA.

iii) Corrective action was taken by FSSAI against the concerned authority who issued/granted second license Active by FSSA.

d) Copy of the notice sent to Parle by FSSAI.

e) Copy of the response sent by Parle to FSSAI.

f) Copies of the NOCs submitted by Bunty Foods (I) Pvt. Ltd. License 10012022000054 in favor of Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. and/or Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. from 2015, till to the date.

g) Copies of annual food inspections of the following FBOs, from 2015 till to the date.

i) Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. License, No. 10013022002253

ii) Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. License No. 10013022002245 lii) Bunty Foods (1) Pvt. Ltd. License 10012022000054

h) The copies of Lab Test Certificates submitted from 2015 till to the date by: -

i) Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. No.10013022002253.

ii) Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. No.10013022002245.

ii) Bunty Foods (I) Pvt. Ltd. License 10012022000054. I)The copies of Annual Returns submitted from 2015 till to the date by:

i) Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. No.10013022002253.

ii) Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. No. 10013022002245.

iii) Bunty Foods (I) Pvt. Ltd. License 10012022000054.

j) Corrective action was taken by FSSAI against the concerned authority who issued/granted/renewed more than FOUR (04) licenses as "RE-LABELR" to Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. against one & same manufacturing address for manufacturing same food products.

k) Corrective action was taken by FSSAI against the concerned authority who issued/granted/renewed more than ELEVAN (11) licenses to Parle Biscuits Pvt.

Ltd. & Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. against one & same manufacturing address for manufacturing same food products.

1) Copy of an accurate, updated "Data-base" of FBOs of Western Region having Central Licenses, after inclusion/incorporation of information of Parle Product/Parle Biscuits- license surrendered/company closure.

m) Copy of "Quarterly Report" sent to CAG, after inclusion/incorporation of the information of Parle Product/Parle Biscuits - License surrendered/company closure.

n) Copies of correspondence/communication/inspections between FSSAI and Parle Products/Parle Biscuits regarding the status of their manufacturing operations since July 2016, if any

o) Copy of the documentary evidence stating that - Thus, the complaint is resolved."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.07.2024 stating as under:

"Please find attached the documents available with Vigilance Unit."

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 12.08.2024, held as under:

"Reply:- On perusal of the Appeal, RTI application and information provided by the CPIO, it is observed that all the information available with Vigilance Unit with respect to the Point No.1 to Point No.4 has been provided by the CPIO. As far as information with respect to Point No.5 is concerned, the information has already been given vide email dated 23-03-2023 alongwith copy of the letter dated 16-09-2020 issued by RCD. The remaining information with respect to Point No.6 is not available with Vigilance Unit and therefore, no information could be given by the CPIO. The RTI application was forwarded to other CPIO also and hence in respect of points pertaining to other CPIO the appeal may be preferred to other FAA."

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Shri Kaushal Upadhyay, Assistant Director, attended the hearing in person.

5. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite service of the hearing notice in advance. An adjournment request has been received from the Appellant through email dated 07.01.2026, stating as under:

"I respectfully submit this request seeking postponement of the RTI hearing scheduled on 29 January 2026 at 11:40 AM, and for permission to attend the hearing through online mode and/or any other suitable digital media, as may be permitted by the Hon'ble Commission.

At present, I am residing in California, USA. I am an Elderly Senior Citizen aged above 80 years. Due to my advanced age, health considerations, and prevailing climatic conditions, it is extremely difficult for me to attend or effectively participate in the hearing at this time.

The current climate in California during January-February is very cold, which adversely affects my health. Additionally, there exists a time difference of approximately 13 hours and 30 minutes between India and California, making participation at the presently scheduled time physically strenuous and impractical.

However, from the month of March 2026 onwards, the climate conditions in California are comparatively milder, and the time difference between India and CIC/FSSAI/A/2024/640155 Page 4 of 6 California reduces to approximately 12 hours and 30 minutes, which would enable me to attend the hearing more comfortably.

In view of the above, I most respectfully request that:

1. The hearing scheduled on 29.01.2026 may kindly be postponed to any date in March 2026 or thereafter; and

2. I may kindly be permitted to attend the hearing through online mode (Video Conferencing) and/or any other suitable digital platform approved by the Hon'ble Commission.

Further, keeping in mind the time-zone difference of approximately 12 hours and 30 minutes in the month of March, I respectfully request that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly consider scheduling the hearing at a suitable time either early in the morning or late in the evening (India time), which would greatly facilitate my effective participation in the official hearing from California, USA.

I also request that Imay be informed in advance about the specific digital medium/platform proposed to be used for online hearing.

This request is made keeping in view the statutory and policy framework recognizing the special needs of senior citizens, including:

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which mandates care, dignity, and facilitation for senior citizens;

Government of India advisories and administrative practices encouraging digital accessibility and compassionate consideration for elderly persons in quasi-judicial proceedings.

The settled principle that procedural flexibility should be extended to elderly litigants, especially where physical presence causes undue hardship and digital alternatives are available.

I am enclosing herewith a PDF document for your kind reference and information, supporting my request.

I shall be highly obliged for your kind consideration of this request in the interest of justice, equity, and humane administration."

6. The Respondent submitted that Appellant is a habitual RTI Applicant and filing numerous RTI Applications on the same subject matter. In the instant case, all the relevant and available information has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 02.07.2024.

Decision:

7. At the outset, the Appellant on the eleventh hour requested the registry of the Bench for adjournment of the instant hearing. The Commission declines the request of the Appellant on the grounds that he had enough time to authorize someone on his behalf to present the case before the Bench but he did not do so. Accordingly, the Commission deems it fit to decide the instant case on merits.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that all the relevant and available information has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 02.07.2024. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasishta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 CIC/FSSAI/A/2024/640155 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)