Central Information Commission
Kamal Kant vs Food Supply And Consumers Affairs on 14 November, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DFSDL/A/2018/101875
CIC/FSACA/A/2018/120193
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/124455
CIC/FSACA/A/2018/124748
CIC/FSACA/A/2018/147115
Shri Kamal Kant ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner-(South), ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Department of Food & Supplies
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. PIO/ Asstt. Commissioner-(RTI)/HQ.,
Dept. of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
3. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner-(Policy),
Dept. of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
4. PIO/ Asstt. Commissioners-(All Zones/
Enforcement/Policy Division/Vigilance),
Through Special Commissioner & FAA,
Dept. of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
5. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner-(N/W),
Department of Food & Supplies
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
6. PIO/ Asstt. Commissioner-(N/E),
Dept. of Food & Supplies
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
7. PIO/ Asstt. Commissioner-(S/W),
Dept. of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Sh. M.S. Dahiya, FSO, A/C (SW), F&S,
Deptt.
Sh. Jitender, FSO, A/C (SW), F&S, Deptt.
Page 1 of 8
Sh. Rajeev Chhabra, A/C (Central)
Sh. Manoj kumar, C-55,59
Sh. Gaurav Sindhu, ASO, HQ
Sh. Mahesh Anand, ASO
Sh. Satish Bisht, F&C, Vig. Branch
PIO/Sh. M.S. Premi, Asstt. Commissioner (N/E)
Sh. Ramesh Chand, FSO, C-5
Sh. V. P. Singh, FSO
: 23.08.2019
Date of Hearing
Date of Decision : 14.11.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
101875 08.06.2017 21.07.2017 26.07.2017 23.08.2017
120193 31.10.2017 27.11.2017 05.12.2017 03.01.2018
124455 27.11.2017 06.12.2017 02.01.2018 18.01.2018
18.12.2017&
26.12.2017
124748 27.11.2017 27.12.2017 02.01.2018 18.01.2018
147115 02.01.2018 -- 28.02.2018 25.04.2018
CIC/DFSDL/A/2018/101875
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2017, seeking information
on ten points:-
1. Provide copy of cover pages of all the complaint books available with the office of
Food & Supplies Department right down to the divisional office
2. Copy of the pages wherein complaint has been written by Complaints along with
the corresponding dates on which they were filed.
3. Certified copies of list of BPL and AAY cards available with fair price shops at
division nos. 45 to 49, 51, 52 and 53 for the years 2001, 2005 and 2007.
4. Provide certified copy of card stock and sale register of the above mentioned
shops for January, March, September and December for the years 2014 and
2015.Etc..
PIO, Sh. Arvind Kumar, vide letter dated 21.07.2017 stated that there were in
total 8 division in their district, therefore, in respect to each one of them
information was being provided to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 26.07.2017. FAA
vide order dated 23.08.2017 stated as follows:-
Page 2 of 8
Point No. 3:-PIO is directed to ascertain from System Branch regarding availability
of information and then pass final order.
Point Nos. 4, 5, 8 & 9:- Complete/correct information may be provided and
documents to be given free of cost.
In compliance with the FAO, Shri Arvind Kumar, Asstt. Commissioner (South),
on 4.10.2017, furnished the information to the Appellant and offered
inspection, if he was still dissatisfied.
Aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the
instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Respondent despite service of notice for the hearing in advance.
A submission dated 23.08.2019 has been received from the Respondent/PIO/ Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Asstt. Commissioner (South) whereby he has sought to be excused for his absence from the hearing due to unavoidable circumstances. Respondent has stated therein that a reply in compliance with the FAO has duly been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 04.10.2017 along with enclosures and opportunity to conduct further inspection. Appellant is aggrieved over the inadequate information being provided to him. It is the complaint of the Appellant that in inquiring about the other remaining records, he was informed by the Respondents that the relevant records have been destroyed by termites and rats.
Decision:
Perusal of the available records indicate that reply in response to the RTI application was provided in a timely manner to the Appellant. Even the First Appeal was adjudicated by the competent authority within the specified time limit. A reply in compliance with the FAO was also provided to the Appellant. However, what remains is the grievance of the Appellant with respect to the adequacy of the information provided to him.
Under the circumstances, Commission is of the view that the case be remanded to the FAA to adjudicate over the matter and decide the same on merits giving specific directions to the PIO to furnish the deficient information to the Appellant, if any, in compliance with the FAO thereof. The appeal shall be decided by a reasoned, speaking order, under intimation to the Commission within 1 month from the date of issue of this order, failing which appropriate action for non-compliance shall be commenced suo motu. In the event, if any record is missing/unavailable/ untraceable the concerned PIO shall file a duly sworn affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper before the Commission explaining the factual position regarding the missing records and the action taken to restore them. A copy of the same shall also be provided to the Appellant. PIO/ Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Asstt. Commissioner (South) is directed to serve a copy of this order on the FAA and ensure its compliance thereof. The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.Page 3 of 8
CIC/FSACA/A/2018/120193 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.10.2017, seeking information on ten points:-
1. Number of surprise inspections conducted by Divisional Officers to Commissioner on Ration Store and FCI Godowns from 1 st January 2017 till date.
2. Details of action taken by the above mentioned officers after inspection.
3. Details of inspections conducted by Commissioner, Special Commissioner, Joint Commissioner and Asstt. Commissioner in the last three years. Provide documents related to inspection.
4. Provide copy of order, instruction and memos issued by above mentioned officers after the inspection. And other related issues.
Multiple replies from PIOs of different districts/zones were served on the Appellant on different dates. PIO (Neeti Shakha), Sh. R.K. Saxena vide letter dated 16.11.2017 provided the information in respect to point no. 8. PIO(North) Sh. Desh Raj Singh forwarded the reply dated 27.11.2017, as received from the Food & Supplies Divisional Officer no.2,3,4,14,15,16,17 and 18, to the Appellant. FSO, C-14 and C-15 vide letter dated 14.11.2019 provided a reply to the Appellant. Etc. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 05.12.2017. FAA vide order dated 03.01.2018 stated as follows:-
"All the Zonal PIOs except PIO(NW) are directed to provide a rectified reply regarding question no. 9 & 10 thereby mentioning the number of pages for which photocopies may be provided within 15 days as per act".
In compliance with FAO, several replies were served on the Appellant on different dates by the concerned PIOs. One Sh. Rajesh Ahuja, Asstt. Commissioner (East) vide letter dated 19.01.2018 provide a revised replies to question No. 9 & 10 as received from Circle 55 to 62. Still aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present appeal. A written submission has been received from the Sh. Rajesh Sakkarwal, Asstt. Commissioner (Enf. ) vide letter dated 22.08.2019 in this case. Another submission dated 23.08.2019 is received from Sh. Rajeev Chhabra, Asstt. Commissioner (Central), containing 74 documents. Respondent submits that the information sought by the Appellant remains with the FPS holders in respect of their transactions, sales records etc. The Circle offices are not the custodian of such records. The Circle office is only controlling and monitoring the activities of the shops for distribution of food grain to ration card holders. All the details of all the FPS holders are available at the department website which can only be accessed and seen by the ration card holder themselves.Page 4 of 8
Respondent has handed over certified copies of records pertaining to 3 FPS (Fair Price Shops) and copy of order regarding distribution of sugar to the Appellant. Respondent draws attention to the observations made by the FAA whereby Appellant acknowledged the receipt of replies to most questions and was unable to satisfactorily state the public interest being served by his RTI application.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/124455 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2017, seeking information on twelve points:-
1. Provide certified copies of complaints books available with fair price ration shops in Zone Nos. 1, 5 to 10 and 13 under North West District of Food and Supplies Department.
2. Provide shop wise details of complaints receipt against the fair price shops mentioned in point No.1.
3. Copy of stock register and sale register of AAY and BPL cards of above mentioned shops for the years 2015-16.
4. Provide certified copies of inspection book of the above mentioned shops from 2015 till date. Etc..
PIO/Food & Supply Officer, Circle No. 05, Sh. Bhushan Sharma, vide letter dated 06.12.2017 and 07.12.2017 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
PIO/Food & Supply Officer, Circle No. 06, 07 and 08 provided information on 16.12.2017, 19.12.2017 and 07.12.2017 respectively. PIO/Food & Supply Officer, Circle No. 01, Narela, Sh. Sharma, vide letter dated 18.12.2017 furnished point wise information to the Appellant. By another reply dated 26.12.2017. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner (N/W) provided information on point No. 5 & 9.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 02.01.2018. FAA vide order dated 18.01.2018 upheld the reply of PIO provided vide letter dated 27.12.2017, which is not filed on record by the Appellant. Vide letter dated 23.02.2018, PIO/ Asstt. Commissioner (NW) Sh. Desh Raj Singh furnished several replies on the Appellant as received from PIOs of various Circles.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present appeal. Submission dated 22.08.2019 is received from Sh. Rajeev Chhabra, Asstt. Commissioner (Central). Respondent submits that the information sought by the Appellant remains with the FPS holders in respect of their transactions, sales records etc. The Circle offices are not the custodian of such records. The Circle office is only controlling and monitoring the activities of the shops for distribution of food grain to ration card holders. All the details of all the FPS holders are available at the department website which can only be accessed and seen by the ration card holder themselves.Page 5 of 8
Decision: CIC/FSACA/A/2018/120193 and CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/124455 After hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the available records Commission notes that the information sought by the Appellant is scattered and voluminous in nature. Several replies have been provided to the Appellant in response to his RTI application and thereafter in compliance with the FAO. Copies of other relevant records have been provided to the Appellant during the hearing today. It is further clarified by the Respondent that the details of FPS holders can only be accessed by each one of them online and therefore the department is not the custodian of records pertaining to them. Under these circumstances, the Commission finds that no further adjudication is required in this case. Moreover, the PIOs are obliged to provide only that information which is available with them. The Appellant is thus advised to file RTI applications which are specific and not generic in nature for their proper disposal.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
CIC/FSACA/A/2018/124748 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2017, seeking information on twelve points:-
1. Provide certified copies of complaints books available with fair price shops in Zone Nos. 63 to 70 under North East District of Food and Supplies Department.
2. Provide shop wise details of complaints receipts against the fair price shops mentioned in point No.1.
3. Copy of stock register and sale register of AAY and BPL cards of above mentioned shops for the years 2015-16.
4. Provide certified copies of inspection book of the above mentioned shops from 2015 till date. Etc. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner (NE) vide letter dated 27.12.2017 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 02.01.2018. SPL. Commissioner/FAA vide order dated 18.01.2018 directed that PIO(North- West) may give a rectified reply to the Appellant as per act. Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Both Appellant and Respondent reiterate the facts and circumstances leading to the present appeal.
Appellant expresses his desire to conduct inspection of records.
Decision:
During the hearing both the parties have arrived at an understanding whereby they have agreed for inspection of complete records on 31.08.2019 at 02:00 pm in the Respondent office. The Commission hereby directs that upon identification of relevant documents during the inspection by the Appellant/his counsel, copies of documents upto 50 pages shall to be provided to him, free of cost and thereafter at Rs. 2/- per page as per the RTI Act. Compliance report Page 6 of 8 shall be submitted by the Respondent/ PIO/Sh. M.S. Premi, Asstt. Commissioner (N/E) before the Commission within 1 month from the date of issue of this order. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action by the Commission.
Before pronouncement of the final decision in this case, the Commission is in receipt of submissions from both the parties.
Submission dated 31.08.2019 is received from the Appellant wherein he has complaint that on visiting the Respondent office on 31.08.2019, he was not allowed inspection of records, in contravention to the agreement between the parties during the hearing held on 23.08.2019.
On 07.09.2019, as directed by the Commission, a compliance report was received from PIO/Sh. M.S. Premi, Asstt. Commissioner (N/E) wherein it was stated that since the Appellant did not appear for the inspection of records on 31.08.2019, therefore, the same was rescheduled for 07.09.2019. It was further stated therein that the inspection, to the satisfaction of the Appellant, has been conducted by him on 07.09.2019.
Perusal of the compliance report dated 07.09.2019, submitted by the PIO/Sh. M.S. Premi, Asstt. Commissioner (N/E), indicates that the Respondent has failed to attach the mentioned enclosure along with it. Therefore, the Commission hereby directs the PIO/Sh. M.S. Premi to file the corresponding enclosure, indicating the receipt of information by the Appellant, as claimed by the Respondent in his submission dated 07.09.2019. The said enclosure shall be filed before the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which appropriate action for non-compliance shall be commenced suo motu.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/FSACA/A/2018/147115 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.01.2018, seeking information on eleven points:-
1. Provide certified copies of complaints books available with fair price shops in Zone Nos. 32 to 39 under South West District of Food and Supplies Department.
2. Provide shop wise details of complaints receipts against the fair price shops mentioned in point No.1.
3. Copy of stock register and sale register of AAY and BPL cards of above mentioned shops for the years 2015-16.
4. Provide certified copies of inspection book of the above mentioned shops from 2015 till date. Etc..
Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 28.02.2018. SPL. Commissioner/FAA vide order dated 25.04.2018 directed PIO/AC(SW) to provide the requisite information with details of dispatched order within a month.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 7 of 8Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
A written submission has been received from the PIO(South-West) vide letter dated 20.08.2019 in this case, which indicates that direction was issued to all APIO/FSOs on 16.08.2019,to provide the relevant information in compliance with the FAA within 03 days. The reply so received, containing 1730 pages has been forwarded to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.08.2019. Appellant denies having received the said reply.
Respondent hands over a copy of the reply thereof to the Appellant with all the 1730 pages.
Decision:
RTI application did not specify the period for which the information is being sought. It was only when the FAA hearing was held that the Appellant clarified the period for which the information was sought i.e. from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2017. However, in contravention of the directions of the FAA to provide the information within 1 month, the information has now been provided to the Appellant after 1 year and 4 months, which contains a total of 1730 pages.
While this is a violation of the RTI Act, since PIO is new and adequate information has now been `provided, the Commission hereby, issues a warning to the PIOs to be careful and strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act. In future, such a violation of the RTI Act will result in penal action.
No further adjudication is required. The case is disposed off as such.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 8 of 8