In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000688
Date of Hearing : May 9, 2011
Date of Decision : May 9, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Mukesh Bharadwaj
RZC52, Gopalnagar
Behind Railmaster Factory
Dhansa Road
Najafgarh
New Delhi 110 043
The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Respondents
The Public Information Officer
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
1st Floor, East Tower
NBCC Place
Bhishm Pitamah Marg
Pragati Vihar
New Delhi 110 003
Represented by : Shri S.C.Kathuria, PIO & DADG(PFA)
Shri Dhir Singh, Appellate Authority & ADG(PFA)
Shri Prakash, T.O (PFA)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000688
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.19.7.10 with the PIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
seeking information against seven points for the period 1.1.09 to 30.6.10 with regard to health and
food safety including certified copies of the guideline fixed to ensure food safety measures, no. of
raids conducted by the team constituted by M/o Health & Family Welfare etc. The CPIO replied on
20.8.10 stating that the certified copies of the guidelines fixed to ensure food safety measures is
available in the public domain while providing the website address. He also stated that the Ministry
has not constituted any team to conduct raids in Delhi or ins different states and in view of this fact
the remaining questions are not relevant. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal
dt.25.9.10 with the Appellate Authority. Dr.Dhir Singh, Appellate Authority vide his order dt.2.11.10
upheld the decision of the PIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal
dt.11.1.11 before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that the Ministry is only responsible for formulating
policies, guidelines, Rules and that the enforcement of the same rests with the State Govts. He also
added that the ‘Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules’ is a priced publication and is available in the
market.
3. The Commission after hearing the submission by the Respondent advises the Appellant to approach
Food Safety Commissioners of respective State Governments for the information he requires. In the
instant case, available information has been provided.
4. The appeal is rejected and the case closed at the Commission’s end.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Mukesh Bharadwaj
RZC52, Gopalnagar
Behind Railmaster Factory
Dhansa Road
Najafgarh
New Delhi 110 043
2. The Public Information Officer
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
1st Floor, East Tower
NBCC Place
Bhishm Pitamah Marg
Pragati Vihar
New Delhi 110 003
3. The Appellate Authority
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
1st Floor, East Tower
NBCC Place
Bhishm Pitamah Marg
Pragati Vihar
New Delhi 110 003
4. Officer in charge, NIC