CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2893/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBC/2007/0553
October 14, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18
[Hearing on 30.9.2008 at 1.00 p.m.]
Appellant: Mr. P. Chandrasekar
Public authority: Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution
Mr. N.K. Sharma, Director (Impex & Vig) & CPIO
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. N.K. Sharma, Director (Impex & Vig)
Mr. R.B.S. Negi, Under Secretary
Appellant not present.
FACTS
:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated
25.9.2007 addressed to PIO, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public
Distribution requesting information pertaining to operational loss claimed by
MMTC. In this connection he has requested for several information against three
queries. The appellant did not receive any reply, therefore he has filed an appeal
vide letter dated 30.10.2007. Again the appellant is quite aggrieved since he has
not received any reply either from PIO or from AA, he has filed this complaint
before the Commission on 30.11.2007. Comments were called for vide letter
dated 11.02.2008, which was received from CPIO on 6.2.2008 informed the
Commission of the action taken by the Ministry. In the meantime, the appellant
has also taken up the matter once again with the Commission on 29.02.2008 by
which he informed the Commission that he has received the requested reply from
the CPIO on 6.2.2008 belatedly. This case was taken up for hearing on
30.9.2008, which was attended by the CPIO in person along with the
representative from the Ministry. The appellant did not attend the hearing.
DECISION:
2. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in this
connection. At the outset I have brought it to the notice of the CPIO that there
was lot of delay in disposing of the application dated 29.9.2007. This application
was received only in the month of October in his Department, since the Ministry
is consisting of two Departments. And it is also indicated before the Commission
the matter is pertaining to FCI and MMTC and therefore he has to take up the
matter with the concerned authorities in order to provide the information. Though
there is delay in giving the information since the matter is pertaining to two
1
different Ministries and two different departments, CPIO has not been able to
collect the information from the concerned custodians and provide it to the
appellant. Apart from this it is also noticed the appellant has not requested for
any specific information except for a particular letter issued by FCI. The CPIO
has also stated after receiving the information on 6.2.2008 the appellant has filed
another RTI application dated 29.2.2008 by which he has requested for certain
letter issued by FCI in respect of calculation of operational loss and for which the
Ministry has also given approval and he has already enclosed a copy of these
letters to the appellant. In view of this, as a special case, I condone the delay
without calling any explanation under section 20(1) of RTI Act for imposing
penalty.
3. However, I hope the CPIO will be careful in future while handling RTI
applications when he has to collect information from different departments and
different Ministries and invariably he should invoke the provisions of section 5(5)
by which the concerned CPIO become the deemed CPIO. This should be
followed very strictly in future. Apart from that, the CPIO should also insist the
appellant to seek specific information and the CPIO is also expected only to
produce the information which is available in material form – in the form of
circular/order which can be given to him. These parameters should be followed
in future so that there will not be any delay in providing information under RTI
Act. As far as the appellant is concerned, since I am satisfied with the
clarification provided by the CPIO during the hearing and he has already
enclosed the letters he has received from FCI, I do not consider any further
direction is necessary in this case. In case if the appellant requests any specific
information about a particular consignment and he wanted to know how
operational loss has been calculated he should take up these matters with the
concerned Departments/Ministries. On these lines, the appeal is disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. N.K. Sharma, Director (Impex & Vig) & CPIO, Ministry of Consumer
Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, D/o Food & Public Distribution, Krishi
Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. Mr. P. Chandrasekar, 394, Great Cotton Road, Tuticorin-628001
2