CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001663/8722
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001663
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ratneshwar Kumar Shah
B-284, Transformer Wali gali
Vijay Marg
Ghonda
Delhi-110053
Respondent : Mr. Mange Ram
Public Information Officer &
Assistant Commissioner (NE)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Office of Assistant Commissioner (NE)
Food and Supplies Department
D.C. Office Complex
Nand Nagri, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 23/02/2010 PIO replied : 22/03/2010 First appeal filed on : 09/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 03/05/2010 Second Appeal received on : 17/06/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO 1. What is the objective of certification of AAY and BPL? Pertains to headquarters. 2. Why is the certified side verification not being carried out Pertains to headquarters.
for those cardholders who do not have their voter list and
identity card for 2007,2008,2009 but are permanently
residing in circle-66 as per the press release dated 7,8
February 2010?
3. How many AAY and BPL ration cards had been issued in In circle 66 certification of 1391 of BPL
circle 66 till date and how many amongst these are certified cards and1511 AAY cards had been
and how many are incorrect? done and further process is being carried
on.
4. Why is the verification of circle 66 not being done by taking It would be done as per the directions of
into a/c the future residential address if there are no voter list the headquarters.
and identity card or any other identity card for
2007,2008,2009 as per the press release?
5. Detail of no. of ration cards of self owned houses and rented It is not possible to tell whether these are
houses out of the total AAY and BPL ration cards after their landlords or tenants whose ration cards
certification. had been certified as there name has to
be necessarily mentioned.
Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO had provided the Appellant with the required information, which was available with him.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO and the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Mange Ram, Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner (NE);
From a perusal of the records and the information provided by the respondent it appears that the
information has been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
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
27 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(IN)
Page 2 of 2
