CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001173/13704
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001173
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Manmohan Singh,
C/o Bhalswa Lok Shakti Manch,
B-7/115, Bhalswa Resettlement Colony,
Delhi - 110044
Respondent (1) : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar
PIO & Assistant Commissioner (NW)
Food & Supply Department, GNCTD
C-Block, Pocket C, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi 110088
(2) : Mr. Chokhe Lal
PIO & Assistant Commissioner (HQ)
Food & Supply Department, GNCTD
K-Block, Vikash Bhawan,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 22/12/2010
PIO replied on : 29/03/2011
First Appeal filed on : 28/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 01/04/2011
Second Appeal received on : 29/04/2011
Information Sought:
1. In the year 2007, how many applications were received for renewal of cards and regarding what
category? Provide the information regarding the application submitted and the respective
categories.
2. Provide the information regarding the category and the number of cards which were renewed and
cancelled respectively.
3. What were the reasons for cancelling the request? How were those reasons established in the
department? Provide the attached copy of the same.
4. Make two separate lists of the cards which were renewed and cancelled in the order specified in the
application. Provide the soft copy of the same.
Reply of PIO:
With reference to the application, the required information is enclosed with the reply. In providing this
information the reply of FSO/APIOs, Circle - 01, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 13 has been taken under
Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005.
From Circle 01
1. Application for BPL and AAY cards were received. Among which 7659 were BPL and 1127 were
AAY.
2. 6841 BPL cards were renewed and 881 were rejected. AAY was not repeated.
3. Having domestic salary more than what is prescribed and not being on the address stated are the
reasons for which the applications were rejected.
Page 1 of 4
From Circle 05
1. In the year 2007, application for renewal of BPL and AAY cards were received. Related record
copy has been attached.
2. No such information is available in the circle. A related copy is attached.
3. Related copy received from a worker is attached.
4. Related copy received from a worker is attached.
From Circle 06
1. 5421 and 1270 applications regarding renewal for BPL and Antoday cards received respectively.
2. Among these applications, 792 BPL cards and 823 Antoday cards were renewed while rests were
cancelled.
3. There were many reasons for which the cards were cancelled like for not being on the address
specified, having salary more than what is prescribed, etc. These cards were investigated by the
inspector.
4. No such information is available in the circle.
From Circle 07
1. In 2007, BPL and AAY cards were renewed. Circle 7 was established in September 2009 hence no
information is available for the year 2007.
2. Circle 7 was established in September 2009 hence no information is available for the year 2007.
3. Information not available.
4. As above.
From Circle 08
1. In 2007, BPL and AAY cards were renewed. Circle 8 was established in September 2009 hence no
information is available for the year 2007.
2. Circle 8 was established in September 2009 hence no information is available for the year 2007.
3. Information not available.
4. As above.
From Circle 09
1. Circle 09 came into existence in September 2009 hence no information is available for the year
2007.
2. As above. The list for current active cards is attached.
3. No such information is available as per the records.
4. The soft copy (C.D) for Circle 09 can be attained by depositing Rs.50/- in the office of the Assistant
Commissioner, Shalimar.
From Circle 10
1. & 2.In the year 2007, total 7529 application for BPL cards were received. Out of that 6317 were
printed 1212 were rejected. 1478 application for AAY cards were received, out of that 1204
cards were printed while 274 were rejected.
3. Cards are prepared as per the guidelines of the department i.e. income limit, etc. out of these
guidelines the applications were rejected.
4. Information of the cancelled application is not available, and existing card information can be
obtained after submission of Rs. 50/- in AC (NW), Shalimar Bagh.
From Circle 13
1. 6183 applications received for renewal of BPL and AAY cards.
2. 3068 BPL/AAY cards made and 3115 BPL/AAY were cancelled.
3. There are various reasons for cancellations. To attain the photocopy of the reasons for cancellation,
deposit Rs 2 per page (61 *2) in the office of Assistant Commissioner.
4. The information is not made in the form it is being asked for.
Page 2 of 4
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No Reply received from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that the PIO provided substantial information to the appellant but till then the
appellant had filed the first appeal. The FAA directed the PIO (NW) to provide the information to the
appellant by registered post within 15 days even though it had already been sent, but this time the
requisite information should be sent after consolidation of the reports received from the respective
circles.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The reply received from the PIO is incomplete, incorrect, misleading, false and not satisfactory.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
Following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Manmohan Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Sukram Pal, FSO(C-9), Mr. Ajit Singh, FSO(C-4) Timarpur, Mr. Rajendra, FSO(C-
24) Pusa; Mr. Tara Chand, FSO(C-14) Shalimar Bagh, Mr. K. P. Kohli, FSO(C-66), Mr. Lila Ram,
FSO(C-61) Gandhi Nagar, Mr. K.K. Sharma, FSO(C-69), Mr. Ashok Kumar, FSO(C-60) Krishna
Nagar, Mr. R. G. Bagade, Link Officer (C-21), Mr. R. R. Meena, FSO(C-58), Mr. Ghanshyam
FSO(57), Mr. O. P. Gupta, FSO(C-56), Mrs. Ravinder Kaur, FSO(C-25), Mr. Nirmala Rani, FSO(C-
16), Mr. R. H. Meena, FSO(C-49), Mr. Vrijendra, FSO(C-62) and Mr. H. P. Meena, PIO & AC(New
Delhi); Mr. Dayanand, FSO(C-48), Asian Market, Mr. Pratap Singh, FSO(C-23) Karol Bagh, Mr. P.
S. Saini, FSO(C-46) Qutub Institutional Area, Mr. Gyan Singh, FSO(C-42) Lajpat Nagar, Mr. G. K.
Ahuja, FSO(C-51) Kalkaji, Mr. A. P. Kardam, FSO(C-52) Okhla, Mr. Subhas, FSO(C-45) Mehrauli,
Mr. Alok Bhattarcharya, FSO(C-47) Devli, Mr. K. S. Chug, FSO(C53) Badarpur, Mr. Srikant,
Inspector(C-2) Burari and Mr. Chokhe Lal, PIO & AC(HQ);
The Commission notes that 27 officers have come from the Food and Supplies Department for
this hearing. This shows why the F&S Department is unable to deliver services to the citizens since
they are unnecessarily wasting their times in action which have no meaning. The FAA had clearly
directed on 01/04/2011 that PIO(NW) was directed to supply the consolidated information from
various circles within 15 days to the Appellant. This has not been done. Besides, some of the Officers
are claiming that they have sent the information to the PIO(HQ) which has not been received by the
Appellant. The 27 Officers present were asked by the Commission the purpose for coming here. They
say they have come here because various Assistant Commissioners had told them to come before the
Commission. PIO(HQ) Mr. Chokhe Lal states that he has sent the required CDs for query-4 to the
Appellant on 14/02/2011 by speed post but the Appellant states he has not received this. The
respondent Mr. Chokhe Lal has not brought any proof to show that these CDs were indeed sent to the
Appellant. Despite the Commission mentioning in its hearing notice that the proof of dispatch should
be brought Mr. Chokhe lal has not brought the relevant papers. The Commission recommends to the
Food Commissioner Mr. Dharam Pal to investigate into this complete waste of public resources and
money and take corrective action if the Department has to deliver any meaningful service to the
Citizens.
The Commission directs Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, PIO/AC(NW) to send the consolidated information on
queries 1, 2 & 3 to the Appellant before 16 August 2011. The Commission also directs PIO(HQ) Mr.
Chokhe Lal to confirm that all the CDs have been sent to the Appellant. If they have not been sent
fresh CDs will be sent to the Appellant before 16 August 2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIOs of North West and Head Quarters are directed to provide the
information as directed above to the Appellant before 16 August 2011.
Page 3 of 4
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIOs of North West and Head Quarters within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIOs are 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.
It appears that the deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show
cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, PIO/AC(NW) and Mr. Chokhe Lal PIO/AC(HQ) will present themselves
before the Commission at the above address on 23 August 2011 at 10.30AM alongwith their written
submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20
(1). They will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit
speed post receipt as proof of having sent 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
28 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SS)
Page 4 of 4