Central Information Commission
Kiran Babanrao Deshmukh vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 10 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MAGRI/A/2022/130105
Kiran Babanrao Deshmukh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers' Welfare, D/o Agriculture
and Farmers' Welfare, INM Division,
RTI Cell, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
Date of Hearing : 05/04/2023
Date of Decision : 05/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 19/04/2022
First appeal filed on : 30/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.03.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Reference: Inclusion of Bio-Stimulants under Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (FCO) by notification in gazette S.O. 882 (E) dt.23-02-2021.
1. Number of applications received to date, in form G for permanent registration of biostimulant under this act? Please provide name of manufacturer and date of application.
2. Number of permanent registrations granted to date?
3. If permanent registration has already been granted, whether complete data (i.e. acute and eco toxicology, Chemistry, Agronomic bio-efficacy, Heavy metal analysis) from Indian NABL accredited laboratories, institutions been submitted?
4. If, entire data has been submitted in such a short period after notification, It means that some manufacturers already had prior information regarding biostimulant act, and requirements for registration 2 or 3 years before notification. Yes or No?
5. Please state, a. Is permanent registration granted to manufacturers without the formation of schedule VI.?
b. How many applications for permanent registration along with data have been accepted to date without schedule VI?
6. As per FC0-1985 the definition of importer as per clause 2(kk) "Importer" means a person who imports Fertilizer in accordance with the Export and import policy of the Central Government, as amended from time to time" and definition of manufacturer as per clause 2(m) "Manufacturer" means a person who produces Fertilizers or mixtures of Fertilizers and the expression "manufacture" with its grammatical variations shall be construed accordingly".
Whereas, a. The notification clause 3(3) includes the word "Importer" but it is excluded in clause 3(4) and 3(5).
b. The notification is highly discriminatory against Importers as the word Importer is omitted in clause 3(4) -- why Importers are excluded? Please state the reason.
c. The notification is highly discriminatory against Importers as the word Importer is omitted in clause 3(5) -- why Importers are excluded? Please state the reason.
2d. Whether data required to be submitted under clause 3 (3) such as (Chemistry, Agronomic bio-efficacy, Toxicity, Heavy metal analysis) can be from internationally reputed foreign laboratories / institutions? Yes or No? e. Clause 3(7) says that "No person shall manufacture or import any Biostimulant unless such Biostimulant is included in schedule VI". Schedule VI along with specifications, test methods for inclusion are not published in gazette. This effectively, means that all those existing businesses of Biostimulant which involve import and manufacture are made illegal. Please state Yes or No?
f. Why time limit for framing schedule VI is not given in gazette?
7. Please state how many samples containing pesticides/bio-pesticides were detected in the country among the biostimulant (unregistered) samples drawn since 2015, and how many prosecutions took place?
8. Agronomic bio-efficiency trials: the substance / product under trial must first be properly identified, for example--to conduct agronomic bio-efficiency trials of fertilizers such as Potassium Nitrate -- the product KNO3 has to be chemically identified and it should contain 13:0:45. The trial will be conducted by using the same dose of nitrogen and potash through other sources and the bioefficacy of KNO3 will be tested.
a. Since, Product identification, Specification, Method of testing is not known as per Schedule VI (does not exist), how agronomic bio-efficiency test can be done?
b. Has ICAR or other national institutes been consulted w.r.t. conducting Agronomic bio-efficacy trials of Biostimulant? c. Does the notification give information about prescribed protocol for conducting bio-efficacy trials?
d. Please provide details of protocol to be followed for testing Agronomic bio-efficacy trials of biostimulant."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 19.04.2022 and stated as under:
"Point (i): Very few applications have been received. Details of manufacturers cannot be provided.
Point (ii) to (v): No permanent registration has been granted so far. 3 Point (vi) (a to c): This Ministry has issued a notification S O. No 1515 dated 31st march, 2022 (copy enclosed) vide which importers are allowed for provisional registration.
Point (vi) (d): Data should be furnished as per trails details mentioned in Clause 3 (3) of Notification dated 23rdFebruary, 2021 (copy enclosed).
Point (vi) (e): Manufacturers and importers are allowed for provisional registration.
Point (vi) (f): Schedule VI is a continuous process. As the new proposals are received, it will be incorporated.
Point (vii): Application has been transferred to Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine & Storage under section 6(3) of RTI Act to provide information directly to the applicant.
Point (viii): The matter will be referred to sub-technical committee for consideration."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.04.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied,the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Ravindra Bhaskar present through video/audio- conference.
Respondent: H. P. Singh, Law Officer & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Rep. of Appellant restricted his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply on point no. 6(e) and 8 only on the following arguments -
"...Point no. 6(e) - 1. Clause 3(7) does not explicitly mentions that those who apply for registration as manufacturer or importers shall carry on the business pending registration and inclusion under schedule VI. 2. Clause 3(7) is taken at face value by all other Govt. functionaries and importers / manufacturers / marketers are being penalized lacking clarity in particular clause. That may please be clarified 4 and necessary inclusion be considered. 3. After registration the product will be included in Schedule VI as per the provisions under act. However, till date schedule VI along with specifications and test methods is not published. 4. As schedule VI is yet not published, we are facing problems in import and manufacture of Biostimulant. 5. In the reply by FAA, it is mentioned that clause 20C (4) is "no- obstante clause. The legal meaning of the word needs to be clarified.
Point no. 8 - 1 As mentioned above schedule VI Is yet not published. 2. CPIO Informed that the matter will be referred to sub-technical committee for consideration. In absence of it how the manufacturer / importer can proceed with the trials. 3. FAA informed to contact institutes for conducting trials and Prescribed guidelines of ICAR for testing material / products on merit basis are available at https://www.icar.ortin/files/1 CAR-Guidelines-PSF-2014.pdf 4. The guidelines available on web link do not mention protocols for Biostimulant/s. Under such circumstances how the trials can be conducted needs to be clarified. 5. In fact, we have requested for the analytical procedure to be adopted for identification of product. That has neither been replied by MO nor by FAA..."
The Commission remarked at the outset thatthe CPIO did not appear before the CIC during hearing despite receipt of hearing notice as per postal tracking report on 22.03.2023. Therefore, due efforts were made by the registry of this bench to contact the CPIO telephonically. Upon contacted through phone call and to a query from the Commission regarding his absence, the CPIO tendered his apology by making excuses that hearing notice was perhaps missed out by his Administrativedepartment due to an oversight and that however, his absence was unintentional. Further, as regards the Appellant's contentions, he submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been shared with the Appellant. However, at the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to share a copy of relevant extracts of ICAR guidelines with the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is extremely cumbersome in nature and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012 or to the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has largely expressed conjectures and sought for information based on speculative queries which cannot be appreciated or comprehended.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO to the instant RTI Application and the Commission is at a 5 loss to comprehend the relief or the action that is being desired by the Appellant through the said appeal.
Even if, the Commission were to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant during the hearing, he is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr.v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."6
Nonetheless, considering the hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of relevant ICAR guidelines which may suffices the information sought for at points no. 6(e) and 8 of RTI Application. The said information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission adversely viewed the absence of the CPIO during hearing and without intimating any substantial reason thereof during hearing, which only shows his disregard towards the proceedings of the Commission.
In view of the above, the present CPIO is hereby directed to send his written submission explaining the reasons for his absence before the Commission during hearing in black and white.The said written explanation of the CPIO along with supportive documents, if any should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7