Central Information Commission
Arun vs Ut Of Puducherry on 22 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/C/2024/619923
Arun ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Department of Fisheries and
Fisherman Welfare, Sub Office of
the Deputy Director of Fisheries
(Welfare), No. 4, Dumas Street,
Puducherry - 605001 ...... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2025
Date of Decision : 21.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
(Total number of 27 complaints/second appeals of the
Complainant/Appellant are listed today for hearing before the Commission)
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 26.04.2024 and 20.05.2024
First appeal filed on : 08.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 25.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 27.02.2024 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 8
"My RTI request is enclosed in PDF, please provide information in point- by-point format to ensure accountability and transparency in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005. Please inform me within five days once my RTI request has been transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
Encl:
Statement : Arun S/o Ilangovan, I am fisherman, I submitted application for lean relief assistance and I am eligible person as per the notification dated.26.06.2023, I am eligible for the lean relief assistance and I applied for ban relief as well rain relief and I obtained the ban relief and rejected the rain relief by the officials due to the reasons known to them, the responsible officials delayed the process due to the reason known to them, then fisheries director Mr. Balaji is under suspension is right now for other reasons, the officials responsible in handling aforesaid application in vaithikuppam locality are lack in service/ the officials not put up the file along with my revenue certificate as per the office procedure even though I submitted revenue certificate but rejected my application and refunded the amount of Rs.1500/- in my bank which is cant acceptable and negligence of duty conferred upon the officials even though I am eligible, Need information regarding the details of all fund allocation/sanctioned/distributed to beneficiaries (PMMSY/UT FUND), proposal, all notification, list of beneficiary, all details for requested income certificate from applicants, the details of the officials responsible in vaithikuppam, other details regarding the LEAN RELIEF ASSISTANCE 2022-23,
1.Provide information the name and designation of the fisheries official is responsible in vaithikuppam zone from the year January 2022-february 2024.
(b) provide reason as information for the affected person u/s 4 (1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 why the responsible official not intimated through proper channel for rejected my application in beginning/requesting revenue certificate.
2. Once notified by your office letter dated 26.06.2023 that I am eligible and furnished ban relief by your department and rejected rain relief by your department after long time, in connection Kindly provide reason u/s 4(1)(d) for the affected person for rejected my application in February 2024 and refunded of Rs.1500.
3. Kindly furnish the copy of the note file once I submitted revenue certificate till refunded.Page 2 of 8
4. Kindly allow me to inspect the aforesaid all records u/s 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. Kindly allow me to inspect the vaithikuppam records preserved by the official in the fisheries department regarding the LEAN RELIEF ASSISTANCE 2022-23
6.(a) Provide details u/s Section 4(1)(b)(ii) regarding the duties and functions of the Officers responsible for handling applications for Lean relief assistance 2022- 2024 (ban/rain relief) in vaithikuppam zone. (b) Name of the official and designation presently in charge.
Statement: The PIO in the fisheries department not done so far the third party audit till date by complying the DoPT order, Read: For to ensure compliance of proactive disclosure package audited by third party under Section 4 of the Act read with Clause 4.4 of O.M. No.1/6/2011-IR, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, dated 07.11.2019;
Read: Order passed vide judgment dated.17.08.2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 990 of 2021 KISHAN CHAND JAIN vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS"
7.(a) Kindly provide information whether the Clause 4.4 of O.M. dated 07.11.2019 complied by PIO or not.(b) provide reason as information under section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 for not compiled.(c) Name of the responsible PIO not compile the O.M. dated 07.11.2019.(d) once complied kindly provide the copy of the third party audit report from the year 2020 to till date.(e) whether the PIO comply the aforesaid supreme court order.(f) if yes provide me the action taken till date.(g) if not provide me the reason as information.
8. Name, designation, contact number, email id of the PIO is responsible for to furnish the aforesaid information."
2. Having not received any response initially, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 25.04.2024, held as under:
Page 3 of 8"The First Appeal application received from Thiru. Arun No.64, Indhira Gandhi Street, Vaithikuppam, Puducherry wherein the applicant has sought for information regarding the "Lean Relief Assistance". Due to authentication error, this office was not able to view/download the original RTI application dt.27-02-2024. After rectification of the error, the RTI application is forwarded to the concerned PIO's. Therefore, The Deputy Director (Welfare), Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Puducherry is advised to furnish the information directly to the applicant within the stipulated period of 10 days as per Rules under intimation to this Directorate (as per section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005) through soft copy & hard copy."
3. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 26.04.2024 stating as under:
"I submit to inform that the RTI application filed by Thiru. Arun, No.64, Indhira Gandhi Street, Vaithikuppam, Puducherry, has been received by this office only on 25.04.2024 vide reference cited above and hence, the undersigned in the capacity of designated Public Information Officer is entitled to furnish reply to the applicant within thirty days of the receipt of the application as per provision under section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 and accordingly the reply will be furnished please."
4. In compliance of FAA's order the PIO furnished a revised reply dated 20.05.2024 to the Complainant as under:
"1. No official has been specifically assigned for vaithikuppam zone/fishing village alone for the scheme component "Livelihood and nutritional support for socio economically backward, active traditional fishers' families for conservation of fisheries resources during fishing ban/lean relief" under the centrally sponsored scheme "Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana". This scheme component is being implemented through the Fishermen/Fisherwomen Cooperative Societies and accordingly the subscription amount of Rs.1500/-under this scheme component is being collected from the eligible members only by the President/Secretary of the concerned Fishermen Co-operative Society based on the operational guidelines Issued by the Department of Fisheries, Govt. of India. However, this scheme component has been assigned to Devasenathipathy, Thiru. V. Co-operative Officer for the year Page 4 of 8 2022-23 and Thiru. C. Aroumougam, Sub-Inspector of Fisheries for the year 2023-24 for scrutiny and compilation of list of subscribers received from the various Fishermen/Fisherwomen Co-operative Societies of Puducherry region.
(b) As the above said scheme component is being implemented through the Fishermen Co-operative Societies, it is the responsibility of the President/Secretary of the concerned Fishermen Co-operative Society to intimate their members on the status of their application.
2. As per the operational guidelines of the above scheme component, the beneficiary should be Below Poverty Line(BPL). The individuals/members who are Above Poverty Line (APL) are not eligible to avail benefit under the above scheme component. However, individuals/members who produces income certificate for their annual income not exceeding Rs.75,000/ obtained from the competent authority are also considered as eligible to avail benefit under the scheme, Though your name has been notified as eligible vide this Department circular 4.26.06.2023, subsequent verification, it was found that you belongs to APL category and the President/Secretary of Vaithikuppam PCS has also informed that no income certificate has been received from you even after repeated request/announcement made by them and hence, requested to refund the subscription amount collected and deposited. Accordingly, the same has been refunded to the bank account of the society and the saciety inturn might have refunded the same to your bank account. It is agan rellerated that it is the responsibility of the President/Secretary of the concerned Fishermeni Co-operative Society to Intimate their members on the status of their application. Also take note that the ban relief of Rs.6500/- and lean reler of Rs.3000/- under state scheme Welfare and Retief for fishermen during lean season and natural calamities for the year 2023-24 in which no income ceiling is insisted upon has also been credited Into your bank account on 13.10.2023 and 08-11-2023 respectively.
3. Kindly furnish the copy of the letter with date through which me revenue certificate has been submitted by you ether to the President/Secretary of the Vaithikuppam PCS or to this office so as to supply required information.
4. You may inspect the relevant records in any of the working day during office hours with prior intimation to this office Page 5 of 8
5. You may inspect the relevant records in any of the working day during office hours with prior intimation to this office
6. No official has been specifically assigned for vaithikuppam fishing village alone for the scheme component Livelihood and nutritional support for social economically backward active traditional fishers families for conservation of fisheries resources during fishing ban/lean relief under the centrally sponsored scheme "Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana".
(b) The above sad scheme component has Thiru. been V assigned to Thru. V. Devasenathipathy, Co-operative Officer for the year 2022-23 and Thru. C. Aroumougam, Sub-Inspector of Fisheries for the year 2023-24 for scrutiny and compilation of list of subscribers received from the Fishermen/Fisherwomen various Co-operative Societies of Puducherry region.
7(a) to (g) No such information available with this office. However, furnishing of such information rests with the Public Authority of the Department.
8. Nadarajan, Deputy Director of Fisheries-cum-P10 Contact No. 10413- 2227289 Email:[email protected]."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri J. Nadarajan, Deputy Director and PIO present through Video-Conference.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Complainant submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent on his RTI application within stipulated period as per the RTI Act. He stated that Page 6 of 8 information on point No. 7 of the RTI application has not been provided to him.
8. The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the PIO and submitted that point-wise reply/information has already been provided to the Complainant vide letters dated 26.04.2024 and 20.05.2024.
9. Upon being queried by the Commission with respect to delay in providing information to the Complainant, the Respondent submitted that they have not received the original RTI application of the Complainant in their office. They only came to know about the present case after receipt of first appeal of the Complainant by the FAA.
Decision:
10. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-receipt of complete information from the Respondent within stipulated period as per the RTI Act. In this regard, it was noteworthy that point-wise reply/information by the Respondent has been provided vide letters dated 26.04.2024 and 20.05.2024 as per the provisions of the RTI Act. However, in the meantime, the Complainant approached the Commission with his present complaint. The reply given by the Respondent is satisfactory and is upheld by the Commission. The Respondent has also explained the delay in providing reply to the Complainant. Further, the Respondent has provided available information to the Complainant on point No. 7 of the RTI application.
11. Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
Page 7 of 8" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
12. In view of the above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Director, Department of Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare, Sub Office of the Deputy Director of Fisheries (Welfare), No. 4, Dumas Street, Puducherry - 605001 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)