CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000316/7175
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000316
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Roshan Lal,
B-73 A, Gali No 3, Ambika Vihar, Shiv Vihar,
Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. Mange Ram
Public Information Officer &
Assistant Commissioner (NE)
Government of NCT of Delhi,
O/o Assistant Commissioner (NE),
Deptt. of Food and Supplies Department,
D C Office Complex, Nand Nagari,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 13/09/2009
PIO replied : 22/09/2009
First appeal filed on : 14/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : No order.
Second Appeal received on : 07/12/2010
Date of Notice of Hearing : 17/02/2010
Hearing Held on : 17/03/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information
Officer (PIO)
1. Reasons for the delay of 2 years in The application of the Appellant for
not renewing the ration card renewal of the BPL ration card was sent
(submitted on 19/11/2007, to the Virgo company through the office
application no 395220, receipt no folder no 62 at serial no 18. But the same
470030). had not been received by this office.
2. Name and designation of officers Therefore, there was slackness on the part
responsible for the delay. of Virgo company. The Appellant should
3. Expected time frame within which approach the circle office for renewal of
the ration card will be renewed. the BPL card.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and no order passed by the FAA. The PIO
simply did not follow up on the application of the Appellant which was sent to the private
company.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Roshan Lal;
Respondent: Mr. Mange Ram, Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner (NE);
The PIO was asked if any orders has been passed by the First Appellate Authority. The
Appellant has produced a copy of the first appeal filed by him on 14/10/2009. The PIO states that
he is not aware of any order having been passed. It appears that the First Appellate Authority
appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty since it appears that he had not passed any order in the
matter.
The Respondent has informed the Appellant that his written application was lost in the courier
service. The PIO has however offered to ensure that the Appellant’s BPL Ration Card is
prepared before 30 March 2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The First Appellate Authority is directed to send his explanation to the Commission
before 10 April 2010, why the Commission should not recommend disciplinary action against
him for dereliction of duty.
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
17 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)