Central Information Commission
Ahmed Ali vs Food Corporation Of India on 21 December, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग,मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/FCIND/C/2022/606922
Shri Ahmed Ali शिकायतकर्ता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Food Corporation of India
Date of Hearing : 21.12.2023
Date of Decision : 21.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.02.2022
PIO replied on : 02.02.2022, 11.02.2022
First Appeal filed on : -
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 03.02.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.02.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Pleases provide the list of all FCI procurement officers in west Bengal their name office address email address and phone numbers Please provide the list of state agencies in west Bengal empanelled with FCI Please provide the details of grievance redressal officer of FCI in west Bengal with regards to procurement Please provide the list documents required for selling of agricultural commodities to FCI directly from farmers under msp please provide the details of officers to be contacted for purpose of procurement their names email address phone number and officer address Does FCI procure commodities from MSME only or from individual farmers also.Page 1 of 5
Please provide the full request number or rti number if you are forwarding this request to other officers."
The CPIO vide letter dated 02.02.2022 replied as under:-
"In this regard, it is informed that for policy and system for procurement following link may be visited.
https://fci.gov.in/procurements.php?view=86"
CPIO, Asst. General Manager, FCI, Kolkata vide letter dated 11.02.2022 provided point-wise reply as under :
Point No. 1 At Regional level, officers involved with procurement operations are GM (Region), DGM (Proc.), AGM (Proc.), DGM (Fin.) & AGM (Fin.) & the details are available in public domain on FCI Website. Further, at DO level, Divisional Managers are also involved and their details are also provided in the FCI web-site. However, names of the Procurement officers for a particular marketing season are also decided at DO level and the same has to be obtained from their end.. However, the applicant has not specified any particular marketing season & FCI is not conducting procurement operations in West Bengal during the KMS 2021-22.
Point No. 2 No State Agencies are empanelled by FCI. Point No. 3: Concern Section In-charge acts as grievance redressal officer on behalf of the General Manager (Region) at FCI, Regional Office West Bengal.
Point No. 4. The list of documents required for selling of agriculture commodities to FCI directly from farmers under MSP are Proof of Identity of farmer AADHAR Card | Voter ID/PAN Card / Kishan Credit Card I Any Govt. Recognised Photo ID Card / Bank Passbook with attested photo.
Proof of farmers' land -Kishan Credit Card / Right of Record or Parcha or Deed/ Bank Pass book indicating cultivation as occupation / Certificate issued by BDO or Govt. Revenue Officer or Authorized State Govt. Officer.
Bank details: Copy of savings bank account (with updated entry and photograph), original cancelled cheque (showing name, Bank Account number & IFSC Code).
Point No. 5 For purpose of procurement, contact may be made with FCI Divisional managers and details of whom are already provided in FCI web-site.
Point No. 6. FCI undertakes procurement of paddy directly from farmers as per Gol instructions.Page 2 of 5
Point No. 7. May be undertaken based on the reply sent to the applicant.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 20.12.2023 has been received from the CPIO, DGM, FCI, New Delhi and same has been taken on record.
Written submission dated 20.12.2023 has been received from the Asst. General Manager, FCI, Kolkata and same has been taken on record.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: 1. Mr. C.S. Ananad, DGM(Proc), FCI, New Delhi
2. Ms. Eshita Debbrama, AGM(Procurement) FCI, Kolkata.
Mr. C.S. Ananad stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished the Complainant. Furthermore, the since the queries raised in the instant RTI Application was closely related to FCI, Kolkata the RTI Application was duly transferred to FCI, Regional office, Kolkata.
Ms. Eshita Debbrama submitted that the requisite information has been duly furnished to the Complainant from their official record within stipulated time frame. . She stated that point-wise reply has been provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 11.02.2022.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO, FCI, Delhi and PIO, FCI, Kolkata to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.Page 3 of 5
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the Respondent, then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section
20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
Page 4 of 5xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaints u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5