Central Information Commission
Mrkarunesh Agrawal vs Food Corporation Of India on 26 September, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
Tel. No. 91-11-26717356
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901528
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901541
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901542
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901543
Date of Hearing : 29.08.2014
Date of Decision : 26.09.2014
Complainant/Appellant : Shri Karunesh Agrawal,
Jabalpur (M.P.)
Respondents : Shri Shri Gaurav Singh, APIO
FCI, Sagar
Shri Rakesh Ranjan, CPIO
FCI, Gwalior
Shri Vijay Kumar, CPIO
FCI, Jabalpur
Shri Ajay Jain, CPIO
FCI, Bhopal
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant fact emerging from appeal: F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901528
RTI Application filed on : 25.04.2014
PIO replied on : 10.06.2014
First Appeal filed on : 16.06.2014
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : No order
Second Appeal received on : 10.07.2014
Relevant fact emerging from appeal: F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901541
RTI Application filed on : 25.04.2014
PIO replied on : 24.05.2013
First Appeal filed on : 31.05.2014
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : No order
Second Appeal received on : 17.07.2014
Relevant fact emerging from appeal: F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901542
RTI Application filed on : 25.04.2014
Page 1 of 5
PIO replied on : No reply
First Appeal filed on : 28.05.2014
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : No order
Second Appeal received on : 17.07.2014
Relevant fact emerging from appeal: F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901543
RTI Application filed on : 25.04.2014
PIO replied on : 24.05.2014
First Appeal filed on : 31.05.2014
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : No order
Second Appeal received on : 17.07.2014
The complainant/appellant made a request for early hearing as he was continuously
being threatened and pressurised for withdrawing his cases. The same is granted.
Information sought:
The appellant sought information on 11 points, from 4 regional offices of FCI in the State of Madhya Pradesh, namely, Sagar, Gwalior, Jabalpur and Bhopal, regarding tender acceptance letter of each tender of Open Market Sale Scheme (OMSS) issued by regional offices for 2012-13, quantity of stock allotted to 17 firms, copies of Release Orders (ROs) for stock allotted/lifted from each centre, copy of authorised signatory for such lifting, loading of stock in trucks as per tender conditions centre/tender wise, copies of bills/claims lodged by parties towards loading/weighing charges & date of submission of bills, number of parties who were allotted stock centre wise certified copies of instructions issued by Regional Office for settlement of claims, verification details of bills/claims, etc. Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
All the parties are present. At the very outset, the appellant pleaded that all the cases may be heard together as the RTI applications are identical but filed in different Regional Offices of FCI. The Commission accepts the same. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the abovementioned appeals are being heard & decided together.
The appellant apprised the Commission of the facts of the case. The appellant stated that the basic issue relates to the rampant corruption that has seeped into the very system of the Food Corporation of India. He stated that the matter relates to tender sale of wheat under OMSS under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution and the information pertains to irregularities in FCI, Madhya Pradesh region in loading cost paid to various agencies during the period of 2012-13. He stated that surplus wheat was sold to bulk buyers through open tenders from FCI and the stock was distributed through Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (MPSCSCL); the same bills/claims for loading/unloading of stock of wheat have been claimed by multiple agencies (i.e. FCI itself, MPSCSCL and the bulk buyers) and that is why FCI has not provided information to him. He alleged that the same is causing a great loss to the Government Exchequer.Page 2 of 5
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901528 The appellant filed an RTI application on 25.04.2014, seeking the above information from FCI, Sagar. CPIO in his reply stated that the concerned file(s) have been sent to CBI on 24.04.2014 and hence, information cannot be provided. The FAA did not dispose of the appeal.
The respondent stated that since the original file(s) have been sent to CBI for investigation, photocopies of the same file cannot be certified in order to provide information to the appellant. The respondent also contended that as the investigation is pending, section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, was invoked. The appellant contended that information can be provided as it is held by the respondent in the form of photocopies of the original record.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901541 The appellant filed an RTI application on 25.04.2014, seeking the above information. The PIO, FCI, Gwalior, in his reply provided information on points 1 to 3, for point 4, stated that the information will be directly provided by FCI, Bhopal and for points 5 to 11, denied information u/s 8(1)(j) as the same was pending under investigation against Shri Ashish Agrawal, GM, FCI, Bhopal. The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal.
The appellant stated that only part information has been given and the rest has been denied. The respondent stated that information on point 4 cannot be provided as the same is commercial in nature u/s 8(1)(d) and information on points 5 to 11, cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901542 The appellant filed an RTI application on 25.04.2014, seeking the above information. On not receiving any response from the PIO/FCI, Jabalpur within prescribed time, appellant filed first appeal. The FAA did not dispose of the appeal.
The respondent stated that information, as available in the office, was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 08.07.2014 but since, the address to which the letter was addressed was incomplete, the letter was returned as undelivered and the same was sent again on 11.08.2014. The appellant stated that only part information has been provided and complete information should be provided in the form of certified copies. The respondent stated that the relevant record was sent to CBI in May end, however, information as available before the said period has been provided.
The appellant stated that information on point 1 has been provided only for 3 parties, to which the respondent replied that the rest of the parties do not fall under the jurisdiction of FCI, Jabalpur and their tender acceptance is under FCI, Bhopal. On query by the Commission, whether the RTI application was transferred to FCI, Bhopal for providing information on the same, the respondent replied in the negative. The appellant stated that information on point 5 has not been provided tender wise. The respondent stated that information from MPSCSCL is still awaited. The appellant stated that incomplete information on point 11 has been provided. On query by the Page 3 of 5 Commission whether the information sought in toto can be provided to the appellant, the respondent replied in the affirmative.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901543 The appellant filed an RTI application on 25.04.2014, seeking the above information. The PIO, FCI, Bhopal, denied providing information u/s 8(1)(h). The FAA did not dispose of the appeal.
The respondent stated that since the original file has been ceased by CBI and is pending trial, information cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. On query by the Commission, whether information is held by FCI, Bhopal, the respondent stated that copies of the original file are kept in the office, however, they are not in a position to certify the same. The appellant pleaded that severe penalty should be imposed on the PIOs as different sections have been invoked without giving proper reasons/ justifications.
Interim Decision:
The instant case is regarding alleged corruption in open market sale scheme (OMSS) for sale of wheat by tender under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution and the information sought pertains to irregularities in FCI, Madhya Pradesh region in loading cost paid to various agencies during the period of 2012-13.
There is a lack of consensus among the PIOs across the regional offices of FCI as the five of them who have been represented before the Commission in these cases, have taken different pleas. Some of the queries have been answered, some not. PIO, FCI, Satna, has stated that certified copies of the original file sent to CBI are kept in the office but has denied providing the information under section 8(1)(h). Whereas PIOs, FCI, Sagar & Bhopal, have stated that they are not in a position to provide information to the appellant as the copies kept of the original file are not certified.
It is clear that the information sought by the complainant/appellant is held by these regional offices but the same has been denied under either section 8(1)(d) or 8(1)(h). The information sought is simple and no justification for denial of same has been given.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901528 The Commission directs, PIO, FCI, Satna to furnish written submission, latest by 24th October, 2014, clearly justifying whether information sought cannot be provided to the appellant, as the photocopies of the original file cannot be certified or u/s 8(1)(h). The PIO shall clearly mention as to how disclosing the information sought would impede the ongoing investigation of the CBI.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901541 Page 4 of 5 PIO, FCI, Gwalior, has taken a completely different view from the then PIO i.e. the information is being denied to the appellant before the Commission under sections 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(h), whereas earlier, the same was being denied u/s 8(1)(j). The Commission takes a serious view of the facts of the case, wherein information has been denied to the appellant on the pretext of some or the other exemption(s), however, the respondent has failed to justify any of them. The RTI application has not been dealt with due deliberation and an incoherent stand have been taken by the respondent authority. The information is simple and due cognizance of the same could have been taken at the first instance and if deemed fit by the PIO, the information could have been provided or denied under a tenable exemption.
The Commission directs, PIO, FCI, Gwalior to furnish written submission, latest by 24th October, 2014, clearly justifying as to which exemption(s) they are claiming for denial of information and reasons for the same. The PIO shall clearly mention as to how the information sought is commercial in nature, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, how disclosing the information sought would impede the ongoing investigation of the CBI or how the same is personal information, disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
The appellant has discharged his onus of proof regarding larger public interest.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/901542 The Commission directs PIO, FCI, Jabalpur to furnish written submission, latest by 24th October 2014, as to how information sought which was provided for the period of May 2013 and before to the appellant cannot be provided from the copies kept of the original file and how the same would impede the investigation pending in the CBI.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901543 The Commission directs, PIO, FCI, Bhopal to furnish written submission, latest by 24th October, 2014, clearly justifying as to how disclosing the information sought by the appellant would impede the ongoing investigation of the CBI u/s 8(1)(h).
The matter is adjourned.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(Braham Dutt Harit) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Page 5 of 5