CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001024/12923Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001024
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg,
F-49, Vishal Colony,
Nangloi, Delhi-41
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Assistant Commissioner
Food & Supply Department, GNCTD
O/o of the Assistant Commissioner
K-Block, Vikas Bhawan,
Delhi-88
RTI application filed on : 20/11/2010
RT application transferred on : 29/11/2010 and 1/12/2010
PIO replied on : 07/12/2010
First Appeal filed on : 17/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : No order
Second Appeal received on : 18/04/2011
The Appellant sought information regarding 6 points but received an answer only with regard to Q.5
from the Computer branch of the F& S Deptt.
Sl. Query PIO`s Response
1. For the years 2005-10, details were sought regarding the No response
functioning of the RTI Act in the F & S Deptt. Provide
details of the number of applications, 1st and 2nd appeals
etc.
2. How many complaints were filed in the PGC from 2005- --do--
10? Provide the name and details of the applicant. What
action was taken against the official?
3. How many complaints were filed regarding FPS/ KOD in --do--
2009 and 2010? Provide details as above.
4. In 2010, how many fresh APL and modification --do--
applications were filed? Provide details. If the card is made
within the 45 day limit, what action is taken against the
officials?
5. From August - 30th November 2010, provide daily Information regarding electricity can be provided
by the IT operator and Internet circle office. The
Progress reports stating on which date the citizens were Server and Centralized web based application
aggrieved because of computer related problems. remains on from 9:30am-7 pm on weekdays and
930am-5pm on Saturday s. The computers installed
at circle offices are connected to the Server through
Tri Band DG Plan of NIC/ MTNL.
6. Om Prakash S/o Nanu Ram has not received his ration card No response.
even 7 months after the application was sent to the Inquiry
Officer. Provide reasons for the same.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply received to RTI application.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order was passed.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information was received from the PIO. Additionally, there was no response from the FAA after the
1st appeal was filed.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing on 17 June 2011:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal
of the papers it appears that no information has been provided to the Appellant on any of the queries.
Query-1 is clearly information which the department has to submit to the Information Commissioner
under Section 25(ii) of the RTI Act. Hence there cannot be any excuse not to provide any information.
Commission’s Decision dated 17 June 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide information on all the queries to the Appellant as per the records
available. If required he will take the assistance of other officers under the provisions of Section 5(4) and
provide the information to the Appellant and the Commission before 15 July 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the 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.
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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 18 July 2011 at 10.30am
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.”
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 18 July 2011:
The following were present
Respondent: Mr. Ajay Arora, PIO & Assistant Commissioner (North), Food and Supply Dept.,
GNCTD, 23/27 Shopping Complex, Gulabi Bagh, New Delhi;
The PIO states that he has a letter from the Appellant dated 15/06/2011 by which the Appellant
has talked of withdrawing the appeal. The Commission has not received any such letter at the time of
hearing and ahs issued a showcause notice to the PIO to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1)
should not be imposed. The PIO states that he has not prepared for answering the showcause since he
assumes that the appeal should be treated as withdrawn. When an appeal is made to the Commission
public resources are being expended and the Commission would still go ahead with the penalty
proceedings even if the Appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal.
Adjunct:
In view of the fact that the PIO has not prepared the submissions the Commission
gives him one more opportunity to appear for the showcause hearing with his written
submission on 21 July 2011 at 11.00AM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1)
should not be imposed.
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
18 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (PK))