Central Information Commission
Mrpardeep Kumar vs Food Corporation Of India on 18 December, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/YA/C/2014/900447/KY
Complainant : Shri Pradeep Kumar
S/o. Shri Daryao Singh
VPO. Ahar, The: Israna,
Distt: Panipat, Haryana
Public Authority : The CPIO
M/o Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Dist. Department of Food and Distribution
Food Corporation of India Corporation of India
Date of Hearing : 18.12.2015
Date of Decision : 18.12.2015
Presence:
Complainant : Absent
CPIO : Shri Ankur Vats, Area Manger (Karnal) & CPIO and
Shri Kaushik Chaudhury, Under Secretary & CPIO
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 16.05.2014, (as per Complaint) the appellant sought information on sole issue.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 03.09.2014, reportedly provided the required information to the complainant.
III. The First Appeal (FA) is not on record.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), order is not on record.
V. Grounds for the Complaint filed on 29.06.2014, are contained in the
Memorandum of Complaint.
HEARING
Complainant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION Page 1 of 3 At the outset, it is stated here that in the captioned petition, no prayer clause has been incorporated by the petitioner. Thus, it is not known to the Commission as to why petitioner has filed his petition before this Commission. In other words, no relief has been sought from the Commission in his petition. In view of this, the Commission feels that complainant's complaint devoids of merit and deserves to be dismissed outrightly. However, to keep the very purpose of the RTI Act 2005, the Complainant's captioned Complaint is being decided on merit as under:
2. It would be seen here that the complainant, vide his RTI Application dated 16.05.2014, sought information from the respondents on 11 issues. Respondents vide their response dated 03.09.2014, provided the required information to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, Complaint was filed by the complainant on 15.04.2015 before this Commission.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that most important criterion among the other criteria mentioned under Section 18(1) (a) to (e) of the RTI Act 2005, appears to be that complainant must be given incomplete, misleading and false information. However, the other criteria seems to be, refusal of access, not given response, charging unreasonable fee and even refusal of accepting the application for information etc. etc.
4. It is further stated here that, as per Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act 2005, in the complaint cases, it is mandatory on the part of Hon'ble Commission to be satisfied first that there are reasonable grounds for getting the matter inquired from the O/o respondents before proceeding under Section 18 read with 20 of the RTI Act 2005 and the main satisfaction of the Hon'ble Commission seems to be the fulfillment of either criteria as mentioned under Section 18(1) (a) to (e) of the RTI Act 2005.
5. The Commission heard the submissions made by complainant as well as respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the complainant in his RTI application dated 16.05.2014, respondent's response dated 03.09.2014, other material made available on record and also the contents of complaint.
6. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission feels, not satisfied, under section 18(2) of the RTI Act 2005, that there are reasonable grounds for getting the matter inquired simply because the complaint, under reference, miserably failed to qualify the criteria as mentioned under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act 2005. As such, the Commission is of the considered view that complainant's complaint devoids of merit and deserves to be dismissed forthwith. Therefore, it is hereby dismissed.
7. Apart from above, the Commission also thinks that complainant must have appeared, in person or through some one, in such situations, to press his complaint before the Page 2 of 3 Commission, after all, it is his case to be pursued strongly. However, the complainant is absent deliberately, to press his complaint, despite of our due notice. Thus, it shows the intention of the complainant that he is not interested, at all, in pursuing his own case before the Commission.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Registrar The CPIO M/o Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Dist. Department of Food and Distribution Food Corporation of India Corporation of India Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o. Shri Daryao Singh VPO. Ahar, The: Israna, Distt: Panipat, Haryana Page 3 of 3