Central Information Commission
Mr.B Mohan vs Ministry Of Chemicals And Fertilizers on 28 May, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/002105
Dated: 28.05.2012
Name of Appellant : Shri B. Mohan
Name of Respondent : National Pharmaceutical Pricing
Authority, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 15.05.2012
ORDER
Shri B. Mohan, hereinafter called the appellant has filed this appeal dated 31.8.2010 before the Commission against the respondent National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), Department of Pharmaceuticals, New Delhi for providing vague information to his RTI-application dated 6.4.2010. The matter came for hearing on 15.05.2012. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri A.K. Gautam, Advisor and Shri K.K. Jain, Director.
2. The appellant filed an application dated 6.4.2010 under the RTI Act, 2005 requesting for information on Points (a) to (h). The CPIO vide his letter dated 29.4.2010 replied to the appellant Para (a) to (c) & (f) that Note III and VI of Notification No. 1665(E) dated 29.7.2007 are part of the ceiling price of the said Notification and the NPPA had not issued any separate notice for any violation of note. III and VI. During the hearing the CPIO submits that Notes III and VI are an integral part of the Notification and no separate Notification has been issued on Note 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/002105 III and VI and, therefore, there is no question of maintaining the record of the same. In so far as Point (d) is concerned, where the appellant sought to know whether the NPPA consulted the Legal Department for issue of Notes of alleged violations, to which the CPIO replied that the NPPA is empowered to lay down its own procedures and, therefore, consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs is not necessary in all the cases. The CPIO has provided categorical reply to Point (e) of the RTI application by stating that there is no difference in interpretation of note III and VI of the Notifications issued by NPPA. On Pont (g) and (h) of the RTI application the CPIO has rightly replied that the queries are in the nature of seeking an opinion and are in the nature of allegations and no information has been sought.
3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first-appeal on 20.5.2010 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order dated 5.7.2010 upheld the reply of the CPIO. However, the FAA has held that should the appellant require any specific information, this can be made available, if so requested.
4. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant alleges that he has not been provided information to his RTI application and that there is selectivity and discrimination in implementation of the aforementioned Notification. The appellant clarifies that at Point (b) of his RTI application he has sought details of parameters that are kept in view to decide whether notice is to be issued for alleged violation or separate ceiling price/individual price is to be fixed from prospective effect ignoring the notes and their violation. However, no specific reply has been given by the respondent, nor have parameters been disclosed. He states that there is no dispute that Notes are a part of the Notification, but the question, according to the appellant, is why certain companies having varying parameters and compositions as compared to the base products specified in the Notification are issued notices and certain companies fulfilling the same criteria are left out. According to the appellant there 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/002105 can be no two interpretations of the same facts. The appellant also states that in Point (c) of the RTI application he had sought information of the details of the names of the companies and names of the products for which separate ceiling prices have been fixed and violation of the said notes on the notification have not lead to issuance of notice. The appellant requests for a categorical reply to Point
(c) of the RTI application.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission hereby directs the FAA to provide categorical reply on Point (b) and (c) of the RTI application to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. The appellant in case, still not satisfied with the reply of the FAA, can approach the Commission by filing a second appeal afresh.
The matter is disposed of with the above directions.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri B. Mohan, E-30, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076.
The CPIO, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, 5th/3rd Floor, YMCA Cultural Centre Building, 1, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001.
The First Appellate Authority, 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/002105 National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, 5th/3rd Floor, YMCA Cultural Centre Building, 1, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001.