Central Information Commission
Ashish Tak vs Food Safety And Standard Authority Of ... on 30 October, 2024
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
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/FSSAI/A/2023/644726
Shri Ashish Tak ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Food Safety and Standard Authority of India. ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.10.2024
Date of Decision : 28.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.08.2023
PIO replied on : 01.09.2023
First Appeal filed on : 01.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : 13.09.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 18.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Please state, if, Food Laboratory, Department of Food Safety, Delhi, A-20, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, Ring Road, New Delhi is NABL Accredited and Notified Laboratory in terms of section 3(1)(p) and 43(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
2. If, response to above point no. 1 is positive, then please furnish copy of: a. Accreditation Certificate by which the above food laboratory was issued Accreditation by NABL, for the first time, along with, scope of Accreditation b. Gazette Notification by which the above food laboratory was recognized and notified by FSSAI c. Each of the revised and/or renewed certificate of Accreditation, along with, scope of Accreditation, issued to the above food laboratory upon expiry of validation period of the Accreditation Certificate so issued, as above, till date.
3. Please state, if, Food Laboratory, Department of Food Safery, GNCT of Delhi, STH Floor Mayur Bhawan Connaught Place. New Delhi-110001 is NABL. Accredited and Notified Laboratory in terms of section 3(1)(p) and 43(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
4. If, response to above point no. 3 is positive, please furnish copy of: a. Accreditation Certificate by which the above food laboratory was issued Accreditation by NABI. for the first time, along with, scope of Accreditation b. Gazette Notification by which the above food laboratory was recognized and Page 1 of 3 notified by FSSAI c. Each of the revised and/or renewed certificate of Accreditation, along with, scope of Accreditation, issued to the above food laboratory upon expiry of validation period of the Accreditation Certificate so issued, as above, till date"
The CPIO vide letter dated 01.09.2023 replied as under:-
"1. Yes 2 a) Accreditation certificate is issued by NABL and same can be seen from NABL site (https://nabl- india.org/nabl/index.php?c =search&m= searchlabcertificate& cno-631 8). b) Food Laboratory, Department of Food Safety, Delhi, A-20, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, Ring Road, New Delhi was notified by FSSAI vide Gazette Notification dated 13 Feb, 2020. Copy of same is available at given link. (https://fssai.gov.in/upload/notifications/2020/02/5e4a34c75b966Gazette Notification NABL Labs 17 02 2020.pdf) c) Accreditation certificate is issued by NABL and same can be seen from NABL site (https://nabl- india.org/nabl/index.php?c=search&m=searchlabcertificate&cno-6318).
3. No such information is available
4. NA"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 13.09.2023 stated as under:-
"Reply: PIO provided link for getting all information related to NABL. FSSAI notify labs on the basis of NABL certificates available on the website of NABI.."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 24.10.2024 has been received from the CPIO reiterating the aforementioned facts.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Ravinder Kumar Narula - Assistant Director - FSSAI was present during hearing.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Respondent alone was present for hearing and reiterated that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of both parties, it is noted that appropriate reply based on records available with the public authority had been duly sent by the PIO, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has chosen not to contest the case.
In the light of the above facts, the Respondent is directed to send the Appellant a copy of the written submission dated 24.10.2024 filed before the Commission, Page 2 of 3 within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard, within a week thereafter. No further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) 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)