Pankaj Kumar Kundu vs Ministry Of Rural Development on 26 December, 2022

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pankaj Kumar Kundu vs Ministry Of Rural Development on 26 December, 2022

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                            क य सच  ु ना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                       File no.: - CIC/MORLD/A/2021/657609
In the matter of
Pankaj Kumar Kundu                                             ... Appellant
                                        VS

Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Rural Development,
Department of Rural Development,
NRLM Department, 7th Floor NDCC II Building
Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001
                                                             ... Respondent

RTI application filed on           :   19/09/2021
CPIO replied on                    :   07/10/2021
First appeal filed on              :   25/10/2021
First Appellate Authority order    :   10/11/2021
Second Appeal dated                :   02/12/2022
Date of Hearing                    :   26/12/2022
Date of Decision                   :   26/12/2022

The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC

Respondent: Mahesh Gahlawat, Senior Statistical Officer and CPIO (RL), present over VC at CIC Information Sought:

The Appellant has stated that selection of women for Self Help Group (SHG) is on the basis of Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP). In the said context, he has sought the following information:

1. What is the criteria adopted for inclusion of woman under PIP?

2. What is the eligibility criteria for inclusion of a woman under PIP?

3. What are the points, which are taken into consideration for inclusion of a woman under PIP?

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant in his second appeal mentioned that the reply provided by the CPIO was vague and not satisfactory. He further pointed out that from the information given it is not clear what the indicators are for PIP (Participatory Identification of Poor) for determination of a family as a poor family. He requested for complete information in this regard. The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was provided on 07.10.2021 and the same was as per the record.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 07.10.2021 replied to the appellant and stated that Participatory Indientification of Poor(PIP), is operated by the participation of members. It was also mentioned that the same cannot be operated by one individual. The indicators for deciding PIP are different for different states based on the demography and economic index. Moreover, it was stated the indicators can be different district wise also. Therefore, the indicators for PIP and the related questions can be asked from the concerned State SRLM.

The FAA vide order dated 10.11.2021 disposed of the first appeal and enclosed other details also in respect of criteria adopted for inclusion of woman under PIP.

As decided in case no. CIC/RURAL/A/2022/608831 on 26.12.2022 involving the related subject matter, the Commission finds no ground to provide any further relief. It is also relevant to mention here that information sought by the appellant is not strictly covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

In view of the above discussion, the Commission finds no scope for any further relief in this case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ$भ&मा'णत स)या*पत & त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission