Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Department Of Ayush on 2 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग,मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/AYUSH/C/2023/602687
Shri Naresh Kadyan शिकायतकर्ता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of AYUSH ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024
Date of Decision : 28.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18.10.2022
PIO replied on : 02.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 30.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : Dec. 2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
1. "Proper reply on letter pad with designation, on DOARE/E/2021/00078, with the all evidences and research as reply admitted PANCHGAVYA as medicinal qualities, confirming point wise as attached with DOARE/E/2021/00078, reply received from IVRI, Izatnagar.
2. Action taken on MOEAF/E/2022/02475, DOAHD/E/2019/00023, MOEAF/E/2019/00087, along with complete details about Panchgavya, Sustainable Use and Benefit Sharing, besides all efforts for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge, related to cow and their products, being Universal Heritage creature.
3. Rashtriya Kamdhenu Aayog uploaded following information, as per page 3 to 9, confirm point wise and item wise, as claimed by the Central Government.
4. Describe utility of Panchgavya as medicinal values, under Alloepathy, Cowpathy, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Ayurveda, Unani etc.
5. Supply all communications, policy, guidelines, circulars, advisories and file notings, with present status, action taken on Panchgavya, as RTI application as attached, point wise reply required with proof."Page 1 of 5
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated Dec. 2022 held as under:-
3. "WHEREAS for point i, ii, iii &v, the sought information is not under the purview of Ministry of Ayush. Hence, it is suggested that the applicant may directly contact the concerned public authority for desirable information through separate applications in accordance with the Para 3(iii) of guidelines prescribed by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training (OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12th June, 2008) (Copy Enclosed). For point iv, there is no information available in the Drug Policy Section of the Ministry of Ayush on this subject matter. Therefore, the RTI application is being partially transferred under Section 6 (3) to the CCRAS, CCRH, CCRUM and CCRYN with a request to provide the information directly to the applicant under intimation to this Ministry and can be dispose off this matter against the relevant fee as under subsection (1) of Section 7, of RTI act, 2005.
4. WHEREAS the applicant was given an opportunity by the undersigned to attend the hearing scheduled on 21/12/2022 at 04:00 pm to present his point of view. During the hearing, the appellant expressed concern over the reply given by the research councils under Ministry of Ayush that there is no any specific research with regard to Panchgavya. However, he agreed with the stand taken by CPIO that only information available with him can be shared under RTI Act, 2005.
5. WHEREAS the undersigned is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided since CPIO can only furnish information which is available in record and clarifications/opinions/interpretations are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. However, the appellant is free to approach public authorities to redress his grievance and can submit any new proposals directly that are not covered under the scope of the RTI Act, 2005.
6. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the Ministry of Ayush in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
The CPIO, North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda & Homeopathy (NEIAH), Shillong vide letter dated 02.12.2022 replied as under:-
Point No. 1:-Reply letter from IVRI, Izatnagar not attached. So proper comment in this regard cannot be made.
Point No. 2:-Pertaining to Ministry of Ayush.
Point No. 3:-Information provided by Rashtriya Kamdhenu Aayog not furnished to us in the RTI.
Point No. 4:-Panchgavya therapy is recommended for a variety of diseases viz, asthma, flu, allergies, cardiovascular diseases, renal disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, leucoderma, wound healing, leucorrhea, hepatitis, dietary and gastrointestinal tract disorders, obesity, tuberculosis, ulcer, Page 2 of 5 chemical intoxication and other bacterial, fungal and viral infections. The therapy has also demonstrated its therapeutic potential against severe pathological conditions like cancer, AIDS and diabetes. (Reference: Bajaj KK, Chavhan V, Raut NA, Gurav S. Panchgavya: A precious gift to humankind. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2022 Apr-June; 13 (2): 100525. doi:10.1016/j.jaim.2021.09.003.Epub 2022 Jan5. PMID: 34998645; PMCID:
PMC8814384.) Point No. 5:-Pertaining to Rashtriya Kamdhenu Aayog.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions dated 12.11.2024 and 21.11.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Ministry of Ayush stating that appropriate response had been sent to the applicant on 28.10.2022. It was also stated by the Respondent that the matter in question had been duly forwarded to the concerned PIOs from CCRAS, CCRYN, CCRH, CCRUM, NEIAH etc. and officials from the relevant organisations requested to attend the hearing. The Respondent further contended that the prayers sought by the Complainant do not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act and also that the issue related to imposing ban on panchgavya for trading and consumption as medicine as referred by the Complainant is a policy decision of the Government, not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Likewise the Respondent contended that the assumptions of the applicant about the absence of research in Panchgavya is ill conceived.
Written submission dated 21.11.2024 has been filed by the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy [CCRH] stating that appropriate reply had been duly sent to the Applicant vide letter dated 21.11.2022 that no information is available with them.
Another written submission dated 22.11.2024 has also been received from the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine [CCRUM] and has been duly taken on record.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Complainant: Not present Respondent: Shri Abdul Sadiq Khan - CPIO, Ayush Bhawan; Smt. Renu Rajan- CPIO, Smt. Shruti Khandelwal and Shri Rakesh Kumar- CCRAS; Shri M L Meena - CPIO, Dr. Debashish Pande and Shri M C Sharma - Ministry of Ayush; Mr. A Wanshai Shyneet - CPIO, NEIAH, Shillong; Dr. Faroh Ahmad - CCRUM; Dr. Ravikant Agarwal - ICAR; Dr. Manas Sarangi - CPIO, CCRH were present during hearing.Page 3 of 5
The Respondents stated that information available on record with respect to the Complainant's queries, had been duly provided to him, within the limits of permissibility, as laid down in the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon examining the facts of the case, it is noted that the queries raised by the Complainant have been appropriately responded by the Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, by furnishing information from available official records, as permissible under the Act. The Respondents from Ministry of Ayush, CCRAS, CCRUM, CCRH are directed to send a copy of their written submissions to the Complainant within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent PIOs shall submit their respective compliance reports before the Commission within one week thereafter.
In view of the fact that the queries raised by the Complainant have been duly answered and the Complainant has chosen to file this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which is left for adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the records of the case at hand and averments of the Respondent, it appears that the Respondent has sent information available on records thereby negating any attempt at deliberate suppression of information. Since the information furnished by the Respondent is in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and did not suffer from any legal infirmity, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment 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, relevant extract whereof is 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. 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."
In the given circumstances, in the absence of wilful or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case, the Commission finds no ground for further action under Section 18 of the RTI Act in this case.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)