Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan 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/2023/642291
Shri Naresh Kadyan 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 : 27.05.2023
PIO replied on : 30.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 31.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 13.06.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 01.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"Being an active part of Community Policing as man of many achievements and distinctions: Voice for voiceless: Fighter by spirit: Jat by birth: Philanthropist by profession: Activist by mission: Cobbler by qualification: Scouting by passion: Humanitarian by choice: Gandhian by vision and action, habitual khadi wearers and speaking truth, performing fundamental duties, as social reformer, compassionate citizen, and unpaid labour for flora and fauna, it is humbly submitted that:
Today I have attended a meeting, related to Interest Subsidy Eligibility Certificate, of KVIC units with Bankers at Ahmedabad and submitted representation in open house to Chairman of KVIC, related to public objections on TRADEMARKS obtained by KVIC, against Gandhian ethics, values, ideology and philosophy: Trade Mark Objectionable activities, against Negative list Objections: Gandhian values Class 1 Agriculture, horticulture and forestry Negative list of KVIC Class 5 Preparation for destroying vermin Violence: Gandhian values Class 13 Firearms, ammunition and projectiles, explosives Violence: Gandhian values Class 18 Whips: whereas Catapult was ban by KVIC Violence: Gandhian values Page 1 of 3 Class 20 Ivory, whalebone, shell, amber Criminal offense Class 28 Decorations for Christmas trees Discrimination. Class 29 Meat, fish, poultry, eggs Negative list of KVIC Class 31 Live animals Negative list of KVIC Class 33 Alcoholic beverages Negative list of KVIC Class 34 Tobacco, smokers articles Negative list of KVIC Whereas Chairman of KVIC assured me to looked into, I placed my serious objections that KVIC officials tendered false and fabricated affidavit, claiming that KVIC is engaged, in objectionable activities under class, which is untrue against Gandhian value speaking truth, along with violated many sections of IPCs, section 16 of KVIC Act, article 19 of the Constitution, 102 and 103 of Trademark Act, read with section 115 and Rule 25 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017, whereas 120-B, 420 and 511 IPC violated breaching public trust.
Hence supply me complete details and communications, with action taken reports, concerned file notings as well, restoring public believes in KVIC, as I have spent young age of 40 years to Khadi Gramodyog."
The CPIO, Khadi & Village Industries Commission vide letter dated 30.05.2023 replied as under:-
"....it is to inform that the requested information is vague in nature, which does not fall within ambit of definition of information, as prescribed under section 2(f) of RTI, Act-2005.
With the above observation, your above application is disposed off."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 31.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 13.06.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 10/13.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO, KVIC reiterating the above facts. Copy of the same has already been marked 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. Since the queries were not clear, no specific information could be provided to him.
Decision:
Upon careful examination of the facts of the case and upon hearing averments of the Respondent present during hearing, the position so emerges 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 this Page 2 of 3 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)