CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000416/12075
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000416
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appellant:
Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Rathi
353, Durga Puri Extn.
Delhi-110093
Respondent : Mr. R. K. Meena
PIO & AC (NE)
Government of NCT of Delhi
Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs
O/o Assistant Commissioner (North East),
Weavers Complex, Nand Nagri,
New Delhi - 110002
RTI application filed on : 09/09/2010
PIO replied : 15/10/2010
First appeal filed on : 03/11/2010
Notice of Hearing sent on : 28/03/2011
Hearing held on : 24/04/2011
Facts of the issue:
Information regarding the following was sought by the applicant:
1) How many complaints have been received about the non availability of ration card from both
the circles till now from last year?
2) What steps have been taken against the same? If nothing has been done who is responsible for
it?
3) Provide the name, address and phone no. of the officer appointed for both the circles. Also tell
from how much time he is working on this post?
4) Provide the detail of the property of both the officer of the circle? What is their total salary and
their total property?
5) When will the problems be solved? If it will not be solved than who will be responsible for that
and what action would be taken against the same?
First Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory
FAA order:
Smt. Veenu Ganesh was present. Appellant absent. Reply of queries 1 and 2 completely irrelevant.
PIO to provide information on query 1 and 2 within 7 days.
Ground of the Second appeal:
The appellant states that the information given to him by the PIO is incomplete and unsatisfactory.
Submission from the PIO:
Specific information on query 1 and 2 as per the order of the FAA was sent on 24/11/2010.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Rathi;
Respondent : Mr. Bhagat Ram, FSO(C-63) on behalf of Mr. R. K. Meena, PIO & AC (NE);
The Appellant had sought information on certain queries on Circle 62 & 63. Despite the FAA’s
order stating that irrelevant information has been given regarding query-1 & 2 and his direction to
provide the information within 07 days the PIO did not supply any information. It appears that he
believes the Information Commission reminder service for him. After receiving the intimation of
hearing for second appeal he has sent information regarding Circle-63 on 08/04/2011. The Appellant
states that this information regarding Circle-63 is also incomplete. The Appellant states that only 20
complaints have been listed whereas he himself had approached PGC with two complaints which are
not shown in the list. Hence he alleges that the information provided is incomplete.
The Respondent states that the then PIO was Mr. Subodh Kumar the then AC(NE).
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information on Circle-62 & 63 to the
Appellant before 10 May 2011. He will also certify that all complaints have been listed
which have been received during the period.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO Mr. Subodh Kumar the then AC(NE) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the then 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 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. Subodh Kumar the then AC(NE) will present himself before the Commission at the above address
on 23 May 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.
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
21 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RJ)
CC:
To,
Mr. Subodh Kumar the then AC(NE) through Mr. R. K. Meena, PIO & AC (NE);