In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001774 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001779
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001775 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001780
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001776 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001781
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001777 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001782
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001778 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001783
Date of Hearing : September 28, 2011
Date of Decision : September 28, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Umesh Chand
548, Jain Mandir Street,
Chhota Bazar,
Shahdara,
Delhi 110 032
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Food & Supplies Department
Government of NCT of Delhi
Delhi
Represented by: Shri K.K. Sharma, FSO, Circle 59.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001774 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001779
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001775 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001780
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001776 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001781
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001777 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001782
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001778 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001783
ORDER
Background
1. These 10 appealpetitions have been filed by the Appellant, Shri Umesh Chand against nonsupply of
information, in respect of his 10 separate RTIapplications all dated 13.04.2011, by the PIO, Food &
Supplies Department, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi despite the orders all dated 21.06.2011 of the Appellate
Authority to provide the information.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the FSO, who had come to represent the PIO without any proper authorization,
stated that the PIO had originally transferred total 37 RTIapplications (10 of which have been
brought up to the Commission in present appeals) of the Appellant to him, all on the same day and
that he had timely sent his response to the PIO in respect of all the applications which the PIO had
not apparently forwarded to the Appellant. He (FSO) further pointed out that during the course of
hearing before the Appellate Authority he had also made an attempt to hand over copies of his replies
[in respect of present RTIapplications], which he had already sent to the PIO (but had not been
forwarded to the Appellant) , to the Appellant which the Appellant had refused to take. The Appellant,
on his part, while denying the FSO’s statement of handing over the information to him during the first
Appellate hearing, complained that the PIO had not sent him information even after the clear cut
direction of the Appellate Authority. The Appellant then, on being asked, stated that his requirement
in present10 appeals would be met if the information (i.e. copies of Cash Memos, copies of
relevant pages of Stock & Sales Registers and copies of Sales Open Register) are furnished
to him. The FSO also agreed to provide the said identified information to the Appellant.
3. In view of the above, it is directed that the PIO shall furnish the above identified information to the
Appellant free of cost by 14.10.2011.
4. As regards nonsupply of information to the Appellant, the PIO is directed to show cause why penalty
under Section 20 (1) of the RTIAct should not be imposed on him for his failure to furnish the
information to the Appellant and also for failing to comply with the AA’s decision, within the prescribed
time limits. Returnable by 28.10.2011.
5. The PIO is also directed to take note of the fact that any recurrence on his part to choose not to be
present for the hearing at the Commission without any reasonable cause (which he is required to
intimate to the Commission in advance) shall be viewed seriously by the Commission.
6. Appeals are disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Umesh Chand
548, Jain Mandir Street,
Chhota Bazar,
Shahdara,
Delhi 110 032
2. The Appellate Authority
Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs
Government of NCT of Delhi
‘K’ Block, Room No 106, First Floor,
Vikas Bhavan, I P Estate,
New Delhi
3. Public Information Officer & the
Assistant Commissioner (East)
Food & Supplies Department
Government of NCT of Delhi
Dayanand Vihar
Delhi,
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant
may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTI
application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the
Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the
complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant may indicate, what information has not been provided.