In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/C/2011/001581
Date of Hearing : November 22, 2011
Date of Decision : November 22, 2011
Parties:
Complainant
Shri Vijay Kumar Garg
F49, Vishal Colony, Nangloi
Delhi 110 041
The Complainant was present.
Respondents
Department of Food & Supplies
Government of NCT of Delhi
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri Mukesh Kumar, FSO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2011/001581
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication (dated 04.08.2011) with the PIO, Food & Supplies Department,
GNCTD, New Delhi seeking certain information about the change of computer software at the office of
Assistant Commissioner (West) of the public authority. This activity, according to the Applicant, has
resulted in stoppage of work at the office of the public authority. The PIO on 10.08.2011 informed the
Applicant that IPO (applicationfee) submitted by him has not been made in favour of the correct payee.
According to the PIO, the IPO submitted by the Applicant has been made in favour of ‘Account Officer, AC
(West)’ instead of ‘Account Officer Food & Supply Deptt, Govt. of NCT of Delhi’. The PIO accordingly
returned the applicationfee along with application to the Applicant with an advice to him that he should
resubmit his applicationfee in the correct manner. The Applicant, being aggrieved with the PIO’s action,
filed the present petition before the Commission on 16.08.2011 requesting the disclosure of information to
him free of cost.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Complainant stated that the PIO’s decision to return his applicationfee is incorrect
since his other RTIapplications (filed after the present one) accompanied by IPO in favour of Account
Officer, AC (West) have been accepted by the same public authority. The PIO, however, expressed his
unawareness about the acceptance of applicationfee in such a manner by the public authority. He (PIO)
clarified that the public authority does not have any account in the name of the AC (West) and thus it is
not possible for them to accept the applicationfee in such a manner. The Complaint also, when asked,
could not produce any documentary proof showing that the public authority has ever accepted the
applicationfee in a manner in which he has submitted in present case.
3. In view of the above, it is advised that the Complainant, if he so wishes, within 1 week of receipt of this
order, may remit the applicationfee as advised by the PIO, in which case, the PIO, within 2 weeks of
receipt of such fee from the Complainant, shall furnish the information to the Complainant.
4. Complainant is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Vijay Kumar Garg
F49, Vishal Colony, Nangloi
Delhi 110 041
2. Public Information Officer
Department of Food & Supplies
Government of NCT of Delhi
Office of Assistant Commissioner
Hal No. 152, C Block, Community Centre
Janakpuri
New Delhi
3. 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.
