CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002802/5811
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002802
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Sh Jai Narayan
B – 587, JJ Colony, Bawana,
Delhi – 110039
Respondent : Mr. Subhash Chander
PIO & Asst. Commissioner, NW District,
Dept. of Food Supplies and Consumer
Affairs, GNCTD, CSC, CC Block,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi – 110088
Mr. Sanjay Kumar
FSO, Circle 22
Dept. of Food Supplies and Consumer
Affairs, Bawana, Delhi 110039
RTI application filed on : 17/06/2009
PIO replied : 24/07/2009
First appeal filed on : 25/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 24/09/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 29/10/2009
Information Sought:
1. What authorities had taken action regarding the Appellant’s application and on what
dates had such action been taken. Also, with whom was the Appellant’s application
presently, and why so?
2. Name and designation of the authority that investigated the application along with
verified copy of the investigation report.
3. Date of such investigation.
4. If investigation has not been conducted until now, then which authorities are
responsible, and what action has been taken against them?
5. In such cases, after how many days of receipt of application is kerosene oil given?
6. Copy of any departmental order/circular regarding the same.
7. If there is no circular then on what basis is the time limit decided?
8. Due to departmental inefficiency kerosene oil has to be purchased from black market
vendors and due to this great loss is suffered. What compensation will be provided
regarding the same and if not, then reasons for the same.
9. Where can complaints regarding the aforementioned compensation be lodged?
10. Within how many days would the appellant be allowed to get kerosene oil using
his/her ration card?
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO, with the assistance of the FSO C- 07 (under section 5(4)) replied that according
to the departmental policy, when such applications were made, an inspection was usually
carried out in the homes of the applicants and gas agencies in the area were notified.
After such action, the applications were sent to the Dy. Commissioner, Food and Supplies
for approval. Presently the application was being processed and when the same was done,
the entry on the Appellant’s ration card would accordingly be changed.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA observed that the Appellant had a grievance against the Circle Office, and had
sought para wise information as to the action being taken on their earlier requests. The
FAA also observed that the information provided by the PIO was not complete. The FAA
then directed the FSO of the Circle Office to redress the Appellant’s grievance within 20
days and the PIO to furnish the appropriate information within 30 days of the order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
That the Appellant has still not been supplied with the proper information.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant
filed a RTI Application on 17/06/2009. Assistance was sought by the PIO & Asst.
Commissioner (NW) from the FSO C-22 and the reply was sent to the Appellant on
24/07/2009. The Appellant was not satisfied with the reply given by the PIO, and he filed
a First Appeal on 25/08/2009 and the First Appellate Authority held a hearing in this
matter on 22/09/2009. During the hearing the Appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, FSO,
Circle 22, on behalf of the PIO, were present. The First Appellate Authority gave a clear
direction to the FSO, Circle 22 to redress the grievance of the Appellant within 20 days
and directed the PIO & AC (NW) to provide para-wise response to the Appellate within
30 days of the issue of the order, i.e. 24/09/2009. Till the date of filing of Second Appeal,
the First Appellate Authority’s order had not been complied with.
The information sought by the Appellant falls within the definition of Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act and no exemption can be claimed to refuse disclosure by the PIO. If the
information would not have been available with the PIO or if any exemption under
Section 8(1) or 9 applied in the present case, the First Appellate Authority would have
made an observation in that respect. However, no such observation has been made. The
Commission therefore directs the PIO & AC (NW) to comply with the order of the First
Appellate Authority before 04 January 2010.
The Appeal is allowed.
The First Appellate Authority’s order should be complied with and the complete
information should be provided to the Appellant before 04 January 2010.
The PIO/AC(NW) is directed to submit proof of sending the information to the Appellant
to the Commission before 6 January 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO/AC (NW) and Mr.
Sanjay Kumar, the FSO, Circle 22, as the deemed PIO, are guilty of not furnishing the
complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7. The
PIO & AC(NW) 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 had clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that their actions
attract the penal provisions of Section 20. A show cause notice is being issued to the PIO
& AC (NW) and the FSO Circle 22, and they are directed to give their reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them under Section 20
of the RTI Act.
They will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 6 January
2010 at 4 p.m. along with their written submissions to show cause why penalty should
not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the
Appellant and for not complying with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the
PIO/AC(NW) is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing on 6 January
2010 and direct them to appear before the Commission on 6 January 2010 along with
him.
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
10 December 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(PS)