Central Information Commission
Ajay Mallick vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 6 September, 2019
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/PHRCI/A/2018/613993-BJ
Mr. Ajay Mallick
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO and Registrar-Cum-Secretary
Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre,
3rd Floor, Plot No. 2, Community Centre,
Maa Anandamai Marg, New Delhi
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.09.2019
Date of Decision : 06.09.2019
Date of RTI application 29.12.2017
CPIO's response 03.01.2018
Date of the First Appeal 10.01.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 20.02.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the Provision/Rule of the Pharmacy Act under which Surprise Inspections were conducted for New Colleges seeking Approval for the first time.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 03.01.2018, advised the Appellant to refer to Section 16 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 posted on their given website i.e. www.pci.nic.in under the heading "Rules/Regulations & Syllabus". Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 20.02.2018, upheld the CPIO's response. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ajay Mallick ;
Respondent: Ms. Archna Mudgal, Registrar-cum-Secretary, Mr. Anil Mittal, Dy. Secretary and Mr. H. N. Yadav, Consultant;Page 1 of 3
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that he had raised a clear and precise query in the RTI application regarding the Provision/Rule of the Pharmacy Act under which Surprise Inspections were conducted for New Colleges seeking Approval for the first time which was not answered by the Respondent to his satisfaction. In its reply, the Respondent while re-iterating the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission dated 09.07.2019 stated that there existed no provision other than Section 16 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 which empowers the PCI to conduct inspection of the institutions to ascertain the academic and infrastructure facilities before considering approval of pharmacy courses.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 09.07.2019, wherein while referring to Sections 10, 12 and 16 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, it was stated that there is no provision other than Section 16 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 which empowers the PCI to conduct inspection of the institutions to ascertain the academic and infrastructure facilities before considering approval of pharmacy courses. Hence the information provided by the CPIO/ FAA was correct and complete.
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 and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), 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, Page 2 of 3 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."
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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
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: 06.09.2019
Page 3 of 3