CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000916/7869Adjunct-I
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000916
Appellant : Mr. Jilani
D-1210, J.J. Colony
Bawana
Delhi 110039
Respondent : Mr. Chokhe Lal
Public Information Officer & AC
Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies,
Govt of NCT of Delhi,
O/o the Asst. Commissioner (North West)
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 07/10/2009
PIO replied : 09/11/2009
First Appeal filed on : 11/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 07/01/2010
Second Appeal Received on : 10/04/2010
Appellant sought following information regarding his Ration Card no. APL 22640088
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Daily progress report on his application. Name After receiving application enquiry
of officer who has his application at present and officer inspects the site and sends a
since which date. report to Assistant Commissioner &
Deputy Commissioner for approval.
Then tally is done with connections
received from Gas Agencies. Then
after Energy category is rectified.
2. Name & post of officer who has made enquiry Appellant's application is inspected
on his application. Furnish certified copy action by inspector.
taken report on his application.
3. Furnish Date of enquiry made by the deptt. in Inspection will be done.
this regard..
4. Name of officials who were responsible for not Not applied.
making any enquiry till date. What would
action be taken against them by the deptt.
5. Within how many days oil had been issued in No time limit is fixed for such matter.
such type of cases.
6. Provide department order/ circular in respect of Not applied.
above point no.
7. If there was no such circular issued then Not applied.
provide basis on which deptt fixed time limit.
8. How much compensation would be provided by Not applied.
the deptt because of purchasing oil from
Page 1 of 3
market? If no compensation then reason
thereof.
9. Furnish officer address to file complaint for There is no provision for
compensation. compensation.
10. Furnish days within which Appellant would get After taking appropriate action by this
oil. office it has been sent by higher
authority. After getting acceptance of
all officials would be mentioned. It is
not possible to inform fixed time.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA mentioned that Appellant had not provided complete information. FAA directed the PIO to
provide complete information to the Appellant within 20 days.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information not provided till date.
Relevant Facts
that emerged during the Hearing on 26 May 2010:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Ajit Singh, FSO-7 on behalf of Mr. Chokhe Lal, PIO & AC;
The Respondent has not given the progress of the application as sought by the Appellant.
Even after the order of the FAA some information has been provided on 11/04/2010 but it still
does not answer the queries of the progress of the application of the appellant. When the
Commission questioned the respondent why he had not provided the dates on which various
actions were taken on the applications, he gave evasive replies and claimed that the approval for
getting kerosene had now been provided to the Appellant hence nothing survives in the RTI
Application. Since the respondent has not yet supplied the information sought in the RTI
Application he appears to be responsible for not providing the information to the Appellant so
far. ”
Commission’s Decision dated 26 May 2010:
“The appeal is allowed.
The Deemed PIO Mr. Ajit Singh is directed to provide the complete information sought
by the appellant before 05 June 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the deemed PIO Mr. Ajit Singh within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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 deemed 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. Ajit Singh will present himself before
the Commission at the above address on 10 June 2010 at 2.30pm 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.
Page 2 of 3
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.”
Relevant facts emerged during the showcause hearing on 10 June 2010:
“The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. Ajit Singh, FSO-7 & Deemed PIO; Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Inspector;
The Commission had given an order to the Deemed PIO Mr. Ajit Singh to provide the complete
information. He has not been able to bring the complete information even now since he states that the
original application of the appellant is in the Head Quarter. This is completely unacceptable and a clear
defiance of the order of the Commission. The Commission under its powers under Section 18(3) of the
RTI Act is directing Mr. Ajit Singh to get all the documents required to provide the information to the
Commission on 21 June 2010 at 5.00PM. He will bring the complete information with him with all
supporting documents. The Commission will decide on the penalty proceedings on the same day.
Adjunct decision:
The Commission under its powers under Section 18(3) of the RTI Act is directing
Mr. Ajit Singh to get all the documents required to provide the information to the
Commission on 21 June 2010 at 5.00PM.”
Relevant facts emerging during showcause hearing on 21 June 2010:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. Ajit Singh, FSO-7 & Deemed PIO; Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Inspector;
The Deemed PIO Mr. Ajit Singh states that no action has been taken on the application of the
appellant. In May 2010 action has been initiated and the change from Gas to Kerosene has been effective.
Mr.Ajit Singh is directed to send this information alongwith file notings to the appellant before 30 June
2010. Mr. Ajit Singh has given an explanation that since there was no record available in the office hence
he did not give the information earlier. In view of this the penalty proceedings against him are dropped.
Adjunct Decision:
Mr. Ajit Singh is directed to send the information as described above to the appellant
before 30 June 2010.
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
21 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
Page 3 of 3