In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001771
Date of Hearing : September 23, 2011
Date of Decision : September 23, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Anil Kumar
C40, Center Market
New Seemapuri
Delhi 110095
The Appellant was present through his wife Smt. Kamla--assisted by Shri Farhan, a volunteer.
Respondents
Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Delhi
Represented by: Shri Bhagat Ram, FSO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001771
ORDER
Background
1. The genesis of this case lies in the Applicant’s RTI application dated 28.04.11, filed with the PIO, Food
and Supplies Department, Nand Nagri, Delhi, through which he solicited certain information about his
unresolved complaint dated 21.04.2011 regarding stoppage of supply of ration & kerosene oil to him. This
RTIapplication included queries such as, action taken on complaint dated 21.04.2011; name of the
officers who dealt with it; total numbers of complaints received against FPS no. 7987 and KOD no. 1572
along with the name of the Complainants; copy of the daily, weekly register, daily stock register, cash
memo, in respect of FPS no. 7987 and KOD no. 1572. Besides this, the Applicant also wanted to know
when he would receive ration against his ration card. Since the Applicant did not receive any reply from
the PIO, he filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority on 09.06.11 against deemed refusal of his RTI
application by the PIO. The Appellate Authority, in his order dated 04.07.11, while recording the fact that
the PIO has not given any reply to the Appellant, directed the PIO to furnish complete, pointwise and
specific reply to the Appellant, corresponding to his RTIapplication. The Appellant, however, on still not
receiving any reply from the PIO, filed the present petition before the Commission requesting for the
disclosure of correct and complete information to him free of cost, as also initiation of penalty proceeding
against the Respondents for nonsupply of information. He also demanded that compensation of Rs.
10,000/ under section 19 (8)(b) of the RTI Act be directed to be awarded to him for the detriment he
suffered due to nonsupply of information.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the representative of the Respondents, Shri Bhagat Ram, FSO, informed the
Commission that they have since started giving ration as well as kerosene oil to the Appellant. He (the
FSO), in support, produced before the Commission a letter dated 22.09.2011, signed by the Appellant,
wherein the Appellant had admitted that he receives complete ration and kerosene oil against his ration
card (i.e., AAY card no. 45440001). When it was posed to the FSO as to why the public authority had
ceased the said facilities to the Appellant, he cited some wrong entry in their computer database as
reason. The representative of the Appellant (his wife), on her part, stated that the Respondents, from
September, 2010, had suddenly stopped the supply of ration and kerosene oil to them and that
surprisingly, after filing the present RTI application, had resumed the supply of ration to them. However,
according to her, they still chose not to resume the supply of the kerosene oil. Reacting to the letter
produced by the FSO in support of his claim that they have since resumed the above services to them,
she alleged that a day before the date of hearing i.e. 22.09.2011, some officials of Food and Supplies
Department had visited her home (telephone booth) and forcibly got the signature of her husband on the
said letter. She accordingly firmly denied the resumption of supply of kerosene oil by the public authority.
Mr. Farhan, who was assisting the Appellant’s representative, brought to the Commission’s notice that the
Appellant and his wife, besides belonging to very poor strata of the society, are also unfortunately
physically challenged and that, therefore, they are not in position to bear the extra cost of ration &
kerosene oil imposed due to the mistakes committed by the by the public authority. He stated that the
Appellant and his family have been gravely affected by the callous approach of the officials of the public
authority, who have failed to rectify their mistake even after the same had been brought to their notice by
the Appellant through his complaint dated 21.04.2011. This attitude of the officials of the public authority,
according to Mr. Farhan, has not only resulted in financial loss to the Appellant, but has also exhibited
their less than kind approach towards such physically challenged citizens. He accordingly requested the
Commission that a suitable amount of compensation be directed to be awarded to the Appellant for the
detriment he suffered on account of nonreceipt of information, which, if he had received, would have
helped him to resolve his problem and thereby would have saved his hardearned money which he had to
spend in purchase of ration and kerosene oil from the market on almost triple price.
3. Upon hearing the submissions above and on perusing the records, it is noted that the PIO has still not
provided to the Appellant a pointwise reply to his RTIqueries in compliance with the direction of the
Appellate Authority. It is, therefore, directed that the PIO, within 1 week of receipt of this order, shall
furnish a pointwise reply to the Appellant. Besides, the PIO shall also file a sworn affidavit (duly notarised
and stamped) before the Commission, with a copy to the Appellant, clearly mentioning therein the date
from which the public authority has resumed the supply of above facilities (ration and kerosene oil) to the
Appellant. The Appellant is also required to file an affidavit before the Commission indicating the date from
which he has started receiving the above facilities from the public authority. These affidavits should reach
the Commission by 20.10.2011.
4. As regards nonsupply of information to the Appellant by the PIO despite AA’s direction, it is directed that
the PIO shall show cause to the Commission why penalty under section 20(1) of the RTIAct should not be
imposed on him for his failure to respond to the Appellant’s RTI application within the time limit set under
the RTI Act. Returnable by 20.10.2011.
5. Apart from the above, it is also noted that the Appellant, as explained by his representative, Mr. Farhan, in
the instant case has undoubtedly suffered an undue detriment on account of the negligence of the
official(s) of the public authority which could have been easily avoided if the PIO had timely acted upon the
present RTIapplication of the Appellant. This matter, therefore, calls for award of a suitable compensation
to the Appellant under Section 19(8) (b) of the RTIAct. It is accordingly directed that the public authority
viz. Commissioner, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Delhi shall pay an amount of Rs.
5000/ as compensation to the Appellant under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment suffered
by him in terms of the additional payments made by the Appellant towards the rations and the kerosene
oil, due to nonreceipt of information within the time frame set under the RTIAct. This amount is to be paid
to the Appellant by 20.10.2011 under intimation to the Commission.
6. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Anil Kumar
C40, Center Market
New Seemapuri
Delhi 110095
2. The Commissioner
Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs
‘K’ Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate
New Delhi – 110002
3. The Appellate Authority
Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs
‘K’ Block, Room No. 106, 1st Floor
Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate
New Delhi – 110002
4. The Public Information Officer
& Assistant Commissioner (NorthEast)
Food & Supplies Department
Bunker Vihar, Nand Nagri
Delhi
5. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant may
file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2)
copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the Commission’s decision, and
(5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant
may indicate, what information has not been provided.