CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/001821/4844
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001821
Appellant : Mr. Nawal Kishore Goel,
A-10, Balaji Apartment, Plot no. 7
Sector-3, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075
Respondent : State Public Information Officer(PFA) HQ,
Directorate of Prevention of Food
Adulteration, Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
A-20, Lawrence Road Indl. Area,
Ring Road, Delhi-110035
RTI application filed on : 25/11/2008
PIO replied : 22/12/2008
First Appeal filed on : 13/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 15/04/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 27/07/2009
Information sought:
I. The total strength of food Inspectors (authorized to take samples) employed as of today in that
Deptt.
II. The names of different Zones/Districts and the no. of Food Inspectors with their names
attached to each such Zone/District, if they are so attached/divided, or that any Food Inspector
can go to any area/market to take samples.
III. Who authorizes the Food Inspector or the team of Food Inspectors to visit any particular
market(s) on any particular day or is there no such preauthorization.
IV. Whether the Food inspector or the team of Food Inspectors visits are always compulsorily
headed by SDMs of the area or that the SDM may or may not accompany.
V. Whether the market/markets to be visited for lifting samples is decided by the Deptt. head or
by Food Inspectors themselves or by SDMs if they accompany. Whether their personal
attendance is necessary to decide the shops and the item(s) of which sample would be taken.
VI. Whether the visit for Food Inspector or team of Food Inspectors for lifting samples is
unauthorized if not accompanied by the SDM?.
VII. Make available the copies of rules/regulations or guidelines according to which all the
areas/markets are to be visited by Food Inspectors for lifting samples either by rotation by any
other method/ procedure.
VIII. Whether any market visited for lifting samples taken from 4-5 or any number of dealers, that
market cannot revisited on subsequent day(s) or that particular market would be visited after 3
or 6 or even after a year when it turn comes or that there is no such condition governing the
lifting of the sample in market.
IX. How to be sure that the Food Inspector or the team of Food Inspector's visit to a market is duly
authorized if the activities he indulges in are of suspicious nature, namely visit of the same
team of 2-3 Food Inspectors to a market say twice a week or say 5-6 times in month without
any SDM accompanying them and contacting only one/ two dealer on a particular day.
X. Whether any dealer whose samples of have been lifted today would not be re-visited again
within 6 months or such other period or that there is no such condition as per rules or as per
practice being followed.
XI. Whether there is any commission or committee appointed by Delhi Govt. under whose
supervision and guidance the Department of prevention of Food Adulteration function. If yes
the name, address or that Commission, committee or that body be made known, or that this
Deptt. is directly under the Health Minister of Delhi Govt. who could be contacted in case of
any guidance or clarification.
PIO's Reply:
As regards Para I & II-the total strength of food Inspectors employed as on today in this department
is 33. A copy of names of food Inspectors and their deployment in sub-divisions is mentioned
against their names is enclosed as furnished by /Administrative Branch of Directorate of PFA.
As regards Para -III-The SDM/LHA of the area concerned authorizes the food inspectors to
take samples under his supervision.
As regards Para-IV to X- the matter pertains to SDMs/ LHAs of concerned sub-division who
are also SPIO's of their concerned sub-division for PFA matters. Application was transferred to
them vide letter No... dated 02/12/2008 for furnishing information directly to the applicant.
As regards Para XI-As reported by Administrative Branch no record is available in
Administrative Branch regarding commission or committee referred therein. This department is
under the department of Health and family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, headed by Minister of
Health and Social welfare.
Grounds for First Appeal:
1. In most of the paras knowingly incorrect, incomplete and misleading information has been
given.
2. Appellant mentioned that paras (iv) to (vi) and (viii) to (x) is not covered under the
provisions (Section 2(f). as replied.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The para-wise submission /reporting of the SPIO (HQ) were discussed by FAA.
Finally FAA mentioned that SPIO's submission is acceptable and accepted.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant mentioned that copy of FAA's order is much more confusing and misleading.
Finally, Appellant requested for getting information of only two Paras V, IX and Para III.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. RK Ahuja, SPIO (HQ); Mr. KK Mittal, Link SPIO (HQ); Mr. Suniti Kumar
representing SDM Connaught Place); Mr. PC Tiwari representing SDM Delhi Cantt; Mr. SK Sharma
representing SDM Rajouri Garden; Mr. SK Nanda representing LHA HQ PFA dept.
From perusal of the papers and the explanation given by the Respondent, it appears that information
has been provided as per the records available. The respondent informs the Commission that the
reports of the samples drawn and adulteration found are posted on the intranet and this information is
made available only to the officers of the department. The Commission directs the PIO to ensure that
this information is displayed on the website. The Commission is directing this as a requirement of
Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The PIO will ensure that the information directed above is displayed on the website of Department
before 30/10/2009. A compliance report will be sent to the Commission before 05/11/2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
17 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj