Central Information Commission
Mr.Vijay Kumar Tanwar vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 3 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001584/8721Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001584
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Tanwar
D-17/287, Sector 3, Rohini,
Delhi-85.
Respondent : Mr. Ajay Arora
Public Information Officer & Asst. Commissioner (North-West) Department of Food and Supply Government of N.C.T. of Delhi CSC, CC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-88.
RTI application filed on : 22/12/2009 PIO replied : 27/01/2010 First appeal filed on : 04/02/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 02/03/2010 Second Appeal received on : 11/06/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
Certified copies of the following documents with respect to the PDS outlets in Circle-06, Rithala-
1. Daily Sale Registers for the period from 01/09/2009 to The photocopies can be collected after 20/12/2009 of Kerosene Oil Depot No. 2852/85, 3522/92, payment of the requisite fees of 3628, 3706/94, 3878 & 4075/96. Rs.3360.
2. The License Certificates of the above mentioned KODs. The photocopies can be collected after payment of the requisite fees of Rs.14.
3. Daily Stock Registers for the period from 01/12/2008 to The photocopies can be collected after 20/12/2009 of the above mentioned Kerosene Oil Depots payment of the requisite fees of Rs.560.
4. Inspection Book for the period from 01/12/2008 to Information was not available.
20/12/2009 of the above mentioned KODs.
5. Name and details of the Licensee and authorized salesman of As above.
the above mentioned KODs.
6. The survey report of the consumer card holder verification As above.
prepared and submitted by the PDS outlet holders to the FSO, Circle-06, for each quarter of the year 2009.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information was provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
In view of the delay on the part of the PIO, the PIO was directed to provide the information on points 4, 5, & 6 free of cost to the Appellant.Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information given in compliance of the FAA's order was incomplete.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on July 27, 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar Tanwar Respondent: Mr. A. K. Gulati, FSO (C-6) on behalf of Mr. Ajay Arora, Public Information Officer & Asst. Commissioner (North-West);
"The information on query-4, 5 & 6 have not been provided inspite of the order of the FAA. For query-1, 2 & 3 unattested 874 pages have been supplied whereas as per the original letter of the PIO there should have been 1967 pages since an additional of Rs.3934/- has been demanded. The PIO states that the person responsible for this was the earlier FSO (C-6) Mr. Amod Bharthwal."
Decision dated July 27, 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The current PIO is directed to provide the complete information duly attested and also attest the 874 pages supplied earlier to the appellant before 20 August 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO and FSO (C-6) Mr. Amod Bharthwal within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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. He will also showcause why disciplinary action under Section 20(2) should not be recommended against him since he has refused to obey the order of the FAA which indicates that the denial of information may have been due to malafide reasons.
The then FSO (C-6) Mr. Amod Bharthwal will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 03 September 2010 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."
CC: To, The then FSO (C-6) Mr. Amod Bharthwal through Mr. Ajay Arora, Public Information Officer & Asst. Commissioner (North-West);
Relevant facts emerging during show cause hearing held on September 3, 2010: The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar Tanwar;
Respondent: Mr. Amod Barthwal, the then deemed PIO/FSO C- 6.Page 2 of 3
The Commission observed that as per the reply of the then PIO/AC (NW) dated 27/01/2010, the Appellant was required to deposit Rs. 3,360/- for 1680 pages approximately, Rs. 14/- and Rs. 560/- for obtaining information in relation to queries 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI application dated 22/12/2009. In relation to queries 4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application, no information was available. As per the order of the FAA, requisite information was required to be sent to the Appellant free of cost. Mr. Amod Barthwal stated that in accordance with the order of the FAA dated 02/03/2010, 874 pages of information on queries 1, 2 and 3 of the said RTI application was sought to be provided to the Appellant free of cost. The Appellant was requested to collect the said information vide letter dated 01/04/2010, but he did not collect the same. Subsequently, the information was returned by the then PIO/AC (NW) to Mr. Amod Barthwal vide letter dated 23/04/2010, which was delivered to the Appellant on 03/05/2010. Mr. Amod Barthwal stated that the order of the FAA was complied with and that no information was available on queries 4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application.
The Appellant stated that further to the Commission's order dated 27/07/2010, the PIO/AC (NW) provided certain information vide letter dated 18/08/2009. The Appellant stated that the order of the Commission has not been complied with inasmuch as the 874 pages provided on 03/05/2010 have not been attested and only 470 pages instead of 1680 pages of information have been provided to him. In this regard, Mr. Amod Barthwal stated that the calculation of 1680 pages as per the then PIO/AC (NW)'s letter dated 27/01/2010 was not correct due to oversight and all the information available on record i.e. 874 pages have been provided to the Appellant free of cost. The Commission is satisfied with the submissions of Mr. Amod Barthwal.
Adjunct Decision:
In light of the foregoing, the Commission directs Mr. Vijay Kumar Tanwar, the Appellant to send 874 pages of information received by him on 03/05/2010 to the current PIO/AC (NW) before September 15, 2010. The current PIO/AC (NW) is directed to attest the said 874 pages of information and supply the same to the Appellant before September 30, 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost 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 September 3, 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND) Page 3 of 3