Central Information Commission
Ms. Saroj Of Sheikh Sarai & Others vs Deputy Commissioner (Dc) South, ... on 25 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Complaint Nos.CIC/WB/C/2007/00803, CIC/WB/C/2007/00804, CIC/WB/C/2007/00805,
CIC/WB/C/2007/00806, CIC/WB/C/2007/00887 to CIC/WB/C/2007/00896,
& CIC/WB/C/2008/00047 dated 14/15.11.2007 to 7.2.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
ORDER
In our decision of 3.3.08, we had directed as follows:
"The RTI Act 2005 is quite clear on the issue of suo moto disclosure, which Is what complainants in the present case demand. Sec.4 (1) sub-section (b) sub-section (xiii) reads as follows:
Sec. 4(1)(b) (xii) and (xiii) "Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it; "
But the issue of concern in this case, which is the discontinuance or suspension of a scheme, can be defined as an administrative decision. Therefore, the above sub section of sec. 4(1) may be read with sec. 4(1) sub sec. (d) which reads as follows:
Sec. 4(1)(d) "Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons."
As is, therefore, laid down in the law, this information was expected to have been published within 120 days from the enactment of this Act, which was June 21, 2005. The 'Old Age Stipend Scheme' was evidently in operation in June 2005, and seems to have been discontinued, at least insofar as complainants are concerned only in April 2007. Yet, this has not been published to date. PIO Shri S.K. Jha, Dy. Commissioner (South) is, therefore, directed to comply within twenty working days of the date of issue of this Decision with the requirements of Sec. 4(1)(b)(xiii) read with sec. 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act with regard to the 'Old Age Stipend Scheme', under intimation to Shri Pankaj K. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar of this Commission. This can also include the necessary information on Widows' Pension.1
Because the failure of the public authority cited above, cannot be ascribed as a failure of a PIO rendering him/her liable for penalty u/s 20(1), since the complaint is not one of failure to respond to an RTI application, no penalty will lie. However, it is clearly established that the complainants have suffered loss as a result of not being provided the information suo moto, as required under Sec 4 (1) of the Act. For this we find that the demand for compensation is reasonable. However, the amount will require to be determined. Shri SK Jha, Deputy Commissioner will therefore pay an ad hoc amount of Rs 1000/- to each of the complainants u/s19 (8) (b), within one month of the date of issue of this Decision Notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj K. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar of this Commission. He will in the meantime also enquire into the loss or detriment suffered by each after hearing them, and send us a report by March 31,2008 to enable us to determine any further compensation payable to complainants by the public authority "
Instead of a compliance report, we have received a request for review from Shri S. K. Jha Director (IT) NDMC in which he has submitted as follows :
"As per policy, the old age stipend is given to only those elderly persons whose names are recommended by the respective area Councillors. There is also a quota for Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chairman Standing Council, Dy. Standing Council, and Leader of Opposition. Since the names of these applicants were not recommended by any of these ,the department could not consider their names for granting the said stipend. This was very much intimated in writing to these people (a copy of which is enclosed for ready reference of the Commission). Therefore, as far as the grant of old age stipend to the above mentioned persons is concerned, the department has not denied them. As such there is no loss or detriment suffered by the applicants for which the department can be held responsible. The department could have only intimated them about the policy that their names needed to be recommended by the respective area Councillor or any other public representative mentioned in the Policy, which the department did in full measure."
He has then gone on to argue that since the parties were not eligible for old age stipend, and this has not been willfully denied to them, there is no ground for compensation.
Having studied the documents, we find that our decision is negated neither on error of fact nor on law. It is quite possible that complainants were no longer 2 eligible for old age stipend. It is not denied, however, that they had been receiving such a stipend earlier and they were not aware of any reason why such a stipend was discontinued which would have been the case had the information as identified in our decision notice been uploaded on the website as was mandatory for the public authority, as per sec. 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(d). Had they been made so aware, they could have sought other means of livelihood in that period. This was not allowed.
Moreover, the report of Director (IT) has indicated the fact that the public funds in this matter are dispensed on the recommendations of respective area Councilor or other public representatives mentioned in the Policy, with a quota assigned each. There is nothing objectionable in such a policy, but it goes without saying that the public has a right to know as to which public representative has recommended which beneficiary, which was what the public authority was required to do in providing particulars of recipients of concessions u/s 8(1)(b)(xiii).
The Dy. Commissioner (South), MCD will, therefore, pay the compensation awarded to complainants by us before 7.8.2008, if not already done, under intimation to Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar in this Commission.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. A copy of this Decision will also be placed before Ms Shiela Dixit,,Chief Minister, GNCT Delhi for her information.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 25.7.2008 3 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 25.7.2008 4