Central Information Commission

Mr.Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of Health And Family ... on 20 July,

2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi

File No
: CIC/AD/A/2011/001080

Date of Hearing : July 20, 2011

Date of Decision : July 20, 2011

Parties:

Applicant

Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal

H.No.1775, Kucha Lattushah
Dariba
Chandani Chowk
Delhi 110 006

The Applicant was present during the hearing

Respondents

Food Safety & Standards Authority of India

1st Floor, East Tower, NBCC Place
Bhishma Pitamah Marg
Pragati Vihar
New Delhi

Represented by : Shri S.C.Kathuria, PIO & DADG

Shri Dhir Singh, AA & ADG
 Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dix
it
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi

File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001080

ORDER

Background

1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.18.2.11 with the CPIO, Ministry of Food Processing
Industries seeking information against nine points including the following with regard to a news
clipping 'After 125 years, secret Coke formula is out" (TOI 16.2.11)

i) Names of ingredients as reported (or printed) on packs of Coca Cola

ii) Do these ingredients include items as mentioned in enclosed news clipping

iii) Do ingredients listed in enclosed news clipping exist in Coca Cola

iv) If yes, action taken against bottlers/manufacturers of Coca Cola in India to hide complete
information from being printed as mandatory under relevant acts.

v) Copy of rules regarding glass bottles of CocaCola carrying names of ingredients presently.
Shri S.C.Kathuria, CPIO, FSSAI replied on 3.3.11 furnishing point wise information. With regard to
points 1 to 3, he stated that information sought does not attract section 2(f) of the RTI Act. With
regard to points 4, 6 to 8, he stated that implementation of PFA Act, 1954 and the Rules made therein,
rests with State/UT Government who take action in case of violation of provisions of PFA
Rules u/s 16 of PFA Act, 1954. He provided the extract of the Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955 with regard to point 5. The Applicant thereafter filed an appeal dt.5.3.11
with the Appellate Authority. He stated that names of ingredients printed on packs of CocaCola do
not contain those ingredients now exposed in 'secret formula' which have been published in the
media. He contended that it is the duty of public authorities like FSSAI to ensure that people are not
misled by wrong or incomplete information provided on foodpacks by manufacturers/bottlers. The Applicant
averred that the Delhi High Court in the matter 'Bhagat Singh Vs CIC (W.P (C)
No.3114/2007) has held that RTI Act being a right based enactment is akin to a welfare measure and
as such should receive liberal interpretation. Even section 8(2) of RTI Act clearly mentions that
information is to be provided if public interest outweighs harm to the protected interests and that in
the present case, there is definitely public interest involved with coca cola reportedly hiding names of
ingredients now exposed and reiterated his request for information against points 1 to 3. Dr.Dhir
Singh, Appellate Authority replied on 21.3.11 stating that information provided against points 1 to 3 is
as per guidelines issued by DOPT vide OM No.1/8/2007IR dt.8.11.07 and that information against
points 4, 6, 7 and 8 has been sent in accordance with the DoPT OM No.F.10/2/2008IR dt.24.9.10.
Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.29.3.11 before CIC. Decision

2. During the hearing, the Respondents from the Ministry submitted that their (Ministry) role ends with
formulation of policy/Rules and that their implementation rests with State Govts./UTs. He added that all the
information related to the monitoring of the ingredients of Coco Cola can therefore be
obtained only from the States/UTs as there is nothing available in the records of the Ministry on this subject.
The Commission while finding no infirmity in the CPIO's (Ministry) submission that
information has not been transferred to State Governments/UTs as per directions in DoPT OM as mentioned
in para 1, however, in larger public interest directs the CPIO to transfer the RTI
application along with a copy of the PIO's reply and this order to the concerned PIOs in States/UTs
with the direction to provide information directly to the Appellant based on the CPIO's reply to the RTI
application, free of cost. A copy of this transfer letter along with enclosures may also be sent to the Appellant.
With regard to point 9 of the RTI application, the CPIO from the Ministry is directed to
also provide the available information , free of cost to the Appellant. All information should reach
the Appellant by 22.8.11.

3. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.

(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:

1. Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal H.No.1775, Kucha Lattushah Dariba Chandani Chowk Delhi 110 006

2. The Public Information Officer Food Safety & Standards Authority of India 1st Floor, East Tower, NBCC Place
Bhishma Pitamah Marg Pragati Vihar New Delhi

3. The Appellate Authority Food Safety & Standards Authority of India 1st Floor, East Tower, NBCC Place
Bhishma Pitamah Marg Pragati Vihar New Delhi

4. Officer in charge, NIC