ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/ 002319/9443Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002319
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey
B-1751, 52, 53 IInd Floor
(Near State Bank of India)
Jahangir Puri, Delhi – 110033
Respondent : Mr. T. R. Singh
FSO (C-5) & Deemed PIO
O/o the Assistant Commissioner (North West)
Department of Food and Supplies, GNCTD
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110052
RTI application filed on : 20/11/2009
PIO replied : 02/01/2010
First appeal filed on : 11/01/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 03/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 15/03/2010
Information sought Reply of the Public Information Officer
1. Maximum & minimum no. of APL\BPL cards on 1. 1000 Ration Cards are required
each of the distribution shops.
2. The amount of Rice and wheat distributed per 2. The ration is provided not on per unit basis but
unit on APL and BPL Cards per card basis.
APL 11 kg Wheat
BPL 25 kg Wheat , 10 kg Rice , 6 kg Sugar
3. Whether Any specific date fixed for distribution 3. No fixed date. The distributor can provide the
of ration ration on any working day from 9 AM to PM
and from 3 PM to 7 PM.
4. Whether any distributor can deny distributing the 4. No the consumer cannot be denied the ration
ration after 20th of any month
5. The action that can be initiated against any 5. The action is taken according to the rules and
distributor if he denies distributing the ration. regulations.
6. Provide a copy of the leftover ration returned by 6. The leftover ration is carried over to next
shop no. 6330/5526 for the year 2008-2009 & the month and is not returned to the department.
present year, if any, to the food and supplies
department
7. No. of APL\BPL card holders on shop no. 6330/ 7. APL 461 & BPL 109
5526
8. Provide a copy of ration supplied to the above 8. Details of April to November provided.
Page 1 of 4
mentioned shop and the amount distributed.
Provide a list for wheat, rice and other items
distributed.
9. Copy of document stating the rations adjusted in 9. No information was taken from the above
the next month; provide a item wise list for the mentioned shop for the adjustment made in the
same. ration
10. Whether any inspection is conducted to check the 10. If any complaint is received then the
distribution of ration at various shops. Provide a superintendent or the food officer is sent for
report stating the inspection dates and the inspection.
duration on the above mentioned shop and also
the no. of inspections done in the shop.
11. Whether any written answer is provided to the 11. If the application is important then only the
applicant for its complaint and the duration written answer is provided.
within which the answer is provided.
12. Provide a copy of the regulations and formalities 12. BPL cards are made under the special
for making a BPL card & the annual income scheme, Min income should be less than 24200,
limit. the applicant should be a resident of Delhi.
13. Whether any government official is permitted to 13. No Government official is eligible to come
make the BPL card, if yes, specify the grade of under the BPL scheme
the official eligible for the same.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Late, Incomplete and misleading information submitted by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The information provided against points-5, 6, 8, 9, & 10 is not satisfactory. I have of the view that
information provided by the PIO against these points is not complete. FAA directed the PIO to provide
complete information to the appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Late, Incomplete and misleading information submitted by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 21 September 2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey;
Respondent: Mr. Dharam Vir, FSO(C-1) on behalf of Mr. Ajay Arora, Public Information Officer &
Assistant Commissioner (North West);
“The respondent admits that the order of the FAA was not complied with. He states that the
person responsible for providing information as per the order of the FAA was Mr. Anil Kumar the then
FSO(C-5). The appellant points out that he had filed the RTI Application on 20/11/2009 and he should
have been provided information before 20/12/2009. Instead even the first reply was given on 02/01/2010.
The appellant would like to inspect the records himself and taken the information that he wants.”
Commission’s Decision dated 21 September 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The Commission directs Mr. Dharamvir to facilitate an inspection of the records by
the appellant on 30 September 2010 at the office of FSO (C-5), Village Bhalaswa from
10.00AM onwards. The appellant will be given attested photocopies of the records which
he wants free of cost upto 200 pages.
Page 2 of 4
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Anil Kumar the then FSO(C-5) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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.
Mr. Anil Kumar the then FSO(C-5) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
03 November 2010 at 3.30pm 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 Hearing on 03 November 2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey;
Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar the then FSO (C-5); Mr. T. R. Singh present FSO (C-5) & Deemed PIO;
The present Deemed PIO Mr. T. R. Singh does not appear to have been very cooperative in the
inspection and providing the information to the appellant. The appellant has complained that he had to for
inspection a number of time and first unattested information was provided to him and subsequently also
the complete information was not provided. The respondent has brought all the attested information
before the Commission and is being given to the appellant. The respondent has as yet not provided the
attested photocopy of the DR IV-V which the monthly report submitted by the FPS 6330. The respondent
admits that this report is supposed to be received every month but has no explanation why he has not
brought it. The deemed PIO Mr. T. R. Singh is directed to check and provide the attested photocopies of
the DR IV-V for the period April 2008 to October 2009 to the appellant before 10 November 2010. If the
department has not received these reports for any of these months these should be stated.
The Commission had ordered that the inspection of the records should be done on 30 September 2010 at
the Office of the FSO(C-5) and photocopies of the relevant records should be provided to the appellant
which is identified by him. The complete information is now likely to be provided to the appellant by 10
November 2010. The Commission assumes that if the proper inspection had been done on 30 September
2010 the attested photocopies of the records should have been provided to the appellant before 10 October
2010. Instead the complete information has not likely to be provided to the appellant by 10 November
2010. Thus there is a delay of 30 days in implementing the order of the Commission, which can be
entirely prescribed to Mr. T. R. Singh. Mr. T. R. Singh has no reasonable cause for this delay. Hence the
Commission under its powers under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act imposes a penalty on Mr. T. R. Singh at
the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 30 days delay i.e. `250/- X 30 days = `7500/-
Page 3 of 4
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a
fit case for levying penalty on Mr. T. R. Singh present FSO (C-5) & Deemed PIO. Since
the delay in providing the correct information has been of 30 days, the Commission is
passing an order penalizing Mr. T. R. Singh `7,500/-.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `7,500/-
from the salary of Mr. T. R. Singh and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s
Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send
the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the
Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi –
110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `3500/ per month every month from
the salary of Mr. T. R. Singh and remitted by the 10th of December 2010 and 10th of
January 2011. The total amount of `7,500/- will be remitted by 10th of January, 2011.
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
03 November 2010
(For any further correspondence on this matter, please mention the file number quoted above.) (VK)
1- The Chief Secretary
GNCT of Delhi
New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066
Page 4 of 4