Central Information Commission
Chetan Kothari vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 3 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/DCDPT/A/2017/169828/MH&FW-BJ
Mr. Chetan Kothari
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Assistant Drugs Controller (I)
Directorate General of Health Services
Office of DCG (I), RTI Cell, FDA Bhawan
Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.09.2019
Date of Decision : 03.09.2019
Date of RTI application 07.08.2017
CPIO's response 24.08.2017
Date of the First Appeal 31.08.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 22.09.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.10.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information relating to pending files for final signature by DCGI, India for renewal of license of (a) Blood Bank (b) Blood Storage Center, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.08.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for point no. 01, it was stated that the status of pending applications for renewal of license could be obtained from the respective State Licensing Authority. Moreover, the Central License Approving Authority is empowered to approve the license of Blood Banks in compliance to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and for point no. 02, that the Approvals of Blood Storage Centre's were given by the State Licensing Authority. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 22.09.2017, provided a revised point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for point no. 01, it was stated that as per the specified procedure of their office, no license/files were pending and that the details were available on the website of CDSCO (www.cdsco.nic.in ) and for point no.
02, upheld the CPIO's response.
Page 1 of 3HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Jayant Kumar, CPIO & DDC (I), Mr. Yogesh Shelar, ADCI, Mr. Suresh Kalwaniya, Drugs Inspector and Mr. Abhishek Chawardol, DI;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Nikhil, Network Engineer NIC studio at Bandra confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent informed the Commission that point-wise reply had already been furnished to the Appellant. In addition, he brought the updated status of the pending applications for signing by DCGI for renewal of license. It was stated that they were following the Charter of time lines prescribed for the purpose which is strictly adhered to by CDSCO. It was reiterated that the license were approved by CLAA in compliance with the said Rules following the CDSCO time lines and sent to the State Licensing Authority for issuance. The month-wise status was uploaded on its website. Moreover, the Appellant had been informed from time to time at the CPIO / FAA stage.
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, 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."
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.
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: 03.09.2019
Page 3 of 3