Central Information Commission
Satish Chand Mehra vs Central Drugs Standard Control Organis ... on 19 February, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CDSOM/A/2018/147479-BJ
Mr. Satish Chand Mehra
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Central Drugs Standards Control Organization
Directorate General of Health Services
FDA Bhawan, Kotla Road
New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.02.2020
Date of Decision : 19.02.2020
Date of RTI application 23.05.2018
CPIO's response 29.05.2018
Date of the First Appeal 29.05.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 25.06.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.07.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copies of the recent Notifications giving list of the Veterinary Instruments giving their name and end use, which are classified as Medical Devises and required registration under the Medical Devises Act, 2017 for their manufacture, import and sale in India, etc. The CPIO, vide its reply dated 29.05.2018 while stating that the CDSCO regulates safety, efficacy and quality of the Medical devices under the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 & Medical Devices Rules made there under in 2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 25.06.2018 attached the reply to the RTI Appeal wherein it was stated that the details of medical devices specified under provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act along with reference to notifications had already been provided by the CPIO.Page 1 of 3
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Jayant Kumar, DDC (I) & CPIO, Mr. Abhishek S. Chawardol, Drugs Inspector and Mr. Arvind R. Hiwale, Asst. Drugs Controller;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Akash, DIO NIC studio at Pune confirmed the absence of the Appellant. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the submissions of the CPIO / FAA and stated that the information sought by the Appellant was also available in the public domain. In a recent move, the public authority has consolidated and comprehensively notified all medical devices in the public domain which will be effective from 01.04.2020. A chronological sequence of events related to the RTI application and issues contained therein had also been submitted to the Commission with a copy endorsed to the Applicant.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information Page 2 of 3 relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 19.02.2020 Page 3 of 3