CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000344/11893
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000344
Appellant : Mr. Sayyad Mohd Umar,
C-347, 1st Floor, Main Market,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095
Respondent : Mr. R. K. Meena
PIO & Assistant Commissioner (North East),
Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department,
D.C. Office, Nand Nagri,
Delhi-110093
RTI application filed on : 15.10.2010
PIO replied on : 09.11.2010
First appeal filed on : 19.11.2010
First Appellate Authority order : 14.12.2010
Second Appeal received on : 03.02.2011
Information sought by the Applicant:
The appellant sought the following information:
1. The fine by the government for getting a fake BPL card.
2. Whether it is true that some BPL cards have also been made for rich people. If yes, then what is the
legal action and punishment possible against them.
3. Whether it is true that more than one BPL card has been made for a single family.
4. Whether some private company has got the rights to make these cards.
5. If yes to the previous point, what are the checks to make sure that no fake cards will be issued?
6. If the fake cards are made on a huge basis, then has there been a scam till now and will CBI be used
to investigate it?
7. The appellant quoted the numbers of the cards and asked about their owner, etc.
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO replied as follows:
1. He is an Indian Citizen. His voter ID card is made by the Delhi govt. in 2007-2008-2009.
2. No knowledge about the same.
3. Only one card per family is issued. There will be proceedings against the people who have got more
than one card.
4. No idea.
5. No idea.
6. No idea.
7. The information is available on the website.
Grounds of first Appeal:
The reply provided was incomplete, misleading and unsatisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA directed the PIO to furnish the complete and specific reply to the appellant within the 7 days
of issue of this order. Mr. Vipin Kumar, Inspector (C-64) had appeared before the FAA hearing.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The information is not clear and satisfactory.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Sayyad Mohd Umar;
Respondent : Ms. Sobha Rani, FSO(C-64) & Mr. Binod Kumar, Inspector(C-64) on behalf of Mr. R.
K. Meena, PIO & AC(NE);
The Respondent states that the order of the FAA had not been complied with and has brought
the information which has been given to the Appellant before the Commission. The information about
the details of the BPL Card in which the Appellant has sought the names, addresses and shop numbers
allotted to those BPL Cards has still not been provided.
The Respondent states that the information was to be provided as per the order of the FAA was Mr.
Vipin Kumar, Inspector (C-64).
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Ms. Sobha Rani to provide the information sought on
the names, addresses and shop number of the list of BPL Cards mentioned by the
Appellant in the RTI application, to him before 25 April 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
Deemed PIO Mr. Vipin Kumar, Inspector (C-64) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30
days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior
officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First
Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
Mr. Vipin Kumar, Inspector (C-64) will present himself before the Commission at the above address
on 09 May 2011 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the
information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.
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
07 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MS)
CC: To,
Mr. Vipin Kumar, Inspector (C-64) through Ms. Sobha Rani, FSO(C-64);