CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001478/13540
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001478
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Singh
Plot No.23, New Sirsapur Colony
New Delhi-110042
Respondent : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar
Public Information Officer & AC,
Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affair,
GNCT of Delhi
CSC: CC Block: Shalimar Bagh
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 13/01/2011
PIO replied on : 21/02/2011
First Appeal filed on : 17/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order on : 22/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 02/06/2011
Sl. Query Reply of PIO
1. How many people are the card holders of B.P.L (below the No such record is maintained in
poverty line) in his village? Provide their list mentioning the the circle office.
following-:
• Name of the card holder
• His father's name
• Card number
• The unit number of the members on the card.
2. On what basis was the card issued to the above card holders. Such type of information is not
Provide the documents presented by the card holders in this available in the circle.
respect.
3. When was the last time a survey regarding families B.P.L was Question is unclear
conducted in this village? Provide the survey report as well as
the name of the person who conducted the survey.
4. During the survey, what were the criteria of selecting the This is related to the head office.
families for B.P.L? Produce the rules and standards regarding it.
5. Was any investigation done after this survey? If yes then provide Such type of information is not
its documents. available in the circle.
6. Provide the rules and standards adopted during the second Related to Policy branch.
investigation.
7. Did any irregularity arise during the survey? If yes then what Such type of information is not
were the proceedings done on the filed complaint? available in the circle.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
All the replies given by the PIO were incorrect.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Directed the PIO to give information after ascertaining from the concerned branches to the Appellant
within 21 days by registered post to the Appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Replies sent by the PIO were incorrect and insufficient.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Shyam Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Gopal Sinku, FSO(C-5) on behalf of Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, PIO & AC;
The respondent has informed the Commission that there are six FPS shops in the village.
He4nce the information sought by the Appellant would relate to all the six FPS Shops. No information
has been provided to the Appellant after the order of the FAA. The PIO is directed to provide the
information as per available records for query-1, 3, 5, 6 & 7. If any survey has been carried out a copy
of the survey report will be provided to the Appellant and if any irregularities were found in the
conducting of the survey a copy of any investigation done of the survey these will be provided. If no
survey has been done or no investigation has been done on the survey this should be stated.
The respondent states that the person responsible for not providing the information was the then PIO
Mr. Ajay Arora.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. Gopal Sinku to provide the information as directed
above to the Appellant before 10 August 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
then PIO Mr. Ajay Arora 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. Ajay Arora the then PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
17 August 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
19 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SB)
Copy to Mr. Ajay Arora, the then PIO/AC through Mr. Gopal Sinku, FSO(C-5);