Central Information Commission
Janardan Shankar Ghule vs Department Of Agriculture & ... on 25 September, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/DOA&C/A/2018/121043/01709
File no.: CIC/DOA&C/A/2018/121043
In the matter of:
Janardan Shankar Ghule
... Appellant
VS
CPIO / Director (PP-I)
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,
Department of Agriculture & Cooperation & Farmers Welfare,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001
&
CPIO & APPA (CIB & RC)
Sectt. Of CIB & RC,
Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine & Storage
Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee,
NH- IV, Faridabad - 121 001
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 17/11/2017 CPIO replied on : Not on Record First appeal filed on : 02/01/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Second Appeal dated : 26/03/2018 Date of Hearing : 24/09/2019 Date of Decision : 24/09/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: C R Ajayan, Under Secretary & CPIO alongwith Dr Archana Sinha, Joint Director, both present in person.1
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought following information after inclusion of Boric Acid in the schedule to the Insecticide Act, 1968
1.Whether any further study research had been carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee.
2. Whether any circulars/notifications has been issued by the concerned departments /ministries on the basis of research carried out for continuation of Boric Acid under Section 3(e) of Insecticides Act, 1968.
3. Whether representations have been received from the manufacturers of Boric Acid to still consider the Boric Acid as insecticide under Insecticide Act, 1968.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present despite duly served notice on 12.09.2019 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED275600851IN. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 26.06.2018.
Observations:
On a perusal of the CPIO's reply dated 26.06.2018, it is seen that since the sought for information is not available with the respondent authority an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant was not present to contest the reply of the CPIO. Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Appellant has not availed of the opportunity to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 2 File no.: CIC/DOA&C/A/2018/121043 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3