Central Information Commission
Rahul Manohar Panchbhai vs Department Of Agriculture & ... on 6 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOA&C/A/2023/160990
Shri Rahul Manohar Panchbhai ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 02.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.03.2022
PIO replied on : 29.04.2022
First Appeal filed on : 16.06.2022
First Appellate Order on : 06.12.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 28.02.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.03.2022 seeking clarification / information on inclusion of Bio-Stimulants under FCO - 1985. On following 10 points and sub points:-
"Xx
1. As per FCO-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). Why Importers are excluded? Kindly state reasons, Page 1
1. If definition of Importer and manufacturer has been given in notification dated dt.23-02-2021 (Gazette S.O. 882 (Ε))
2. Is there any particular trade practice for which importers are excluded?
3. Why there is no such restriction for Imports of water soluble fertilizer and micronutrients?
b. Although, many biostimulant importers are in business for 10-20 years, INM notification is excluding importers, not allowing them to take provisional registration. This is illogical and discriminatory. Indian marketers/manufacturers who sell biostimulant such as humic / fulvic/ protein hydrolysate / amino acids, sea weed extract are sourced from foreign manufacturers / Importers OR other indigenous manufacturers not into biostimulant business on their own.
2. Whether data required to be submitted under clause 3 (3) such as (Chemistry, Toxicity, Heavy metal analysis) can be from internationally reputed foreign laboratories / institutions? Manufacturers cannot wait indefinitely for CBC to meet and to take decisions.
a. 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 existingbusinesses of Biostimulant which involve import and manufacture are made illegal b. Kindly explain why time limit for framing schedule VI is not given in gazette?
c. How many meetings of Central Biostimulant Committee have taken place to date? Please give details along with recommendations made.
3. Agronomic bio-efficiency trials:
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? Is proper identification of product not required? Please confirm if this correct.
b. Has ICAR or other national institutes been consulted w.r.t. conducting Agronomic bio-efficacy trials of Biostimulant?
c. Has the notification given 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.
Page 2 e. What is the number of ICAR and State Agriculture University which havefacility to do Agro bio-efficacy trial of biostimulant?
f. What is the number of NABL accredited laboratories in the country which can conduct chemical analysis of biostimulant?
g. What is the number of NABL accredited laboratories in the country which can conduct heavy metal analysis of biostimulant?
h. What is the number of laboratories in the country which can conduct acute and eco toxicity analysis of biostimulant?
i. What is the protocol for conducting shelf life study for biostimulant? Please give details of methodology and protocol as well as institutes which are allowed to conduct such studies.
4. Clause 3(10), states that "No Biostimulant shall contain any pesticide beyond the permissible limit of 0.01 ppm". Pesticide is a class of chemicals and not a product. Please give method of analysis by which FCO will verify 0.01 ppm "Pesticide" content in biostimulant product?
5. And other related information."
The CPIO & Law Officer (Fert.), Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, New Delhi vide letter dated 29.04.2022 replied as under:-
"Point 1: This Ministry has issued a notification S. O. No 1515 dated 31 march, 2022 (copy enclosed) vide which importers are allowed for provisional registration.
Point 2: Data should be furnished as per trials details mentioned in Clause 3 (3) of clause 20 C. Point 2 (a to b): Schedule VI is a continuous process. As the new proposals are received, it will be incorporated.
Point 2 (c): Minutes of the meeting of Central Bio-stimulant Committee, held on 4th June, 2021 is enclosed herewith.
Point (3 to 10): The matter will be referred to Central Bio-stimulant committee."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.06.2022. The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2022 provided point wise clarification.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: 1. Smt Ritu Budhiraja, CPIO & Sr Statistical Officer
2. Shri H P Singh, Sr Consultant The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
Smt Ritu Budhiraja stated that point wise information as per available record was provided to the Appellant despite the fact that some of the queries raised in the RTI application were clarificatory in nature.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)