Central Information Commission
Pankaj Kumar Kundu vs Department Of Rural Development on 26 December, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/RURAL/A/2022/608831
In the matter of
Pankaj Kumar Kundu ... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Rural Development,
Department of Rural Development,
NRLM Department, 7th Floor NDCC II Building
Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 19/11/2021 CPIO replied on : 13/12/2021 First appeal filed on : 23/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 28/12/2021 Second Appeal dated : 10/02/2022 Date of Hearing : 26/12/2022 Date of Decision : 26/12/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Mahesh Gahlawat, Senior Statistical Officer and CPIO (RL), present over VC at CIC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
- For associating with Self Help Group (SHG), it is required that the family or the woman concerned should be from a poor family. Provide the criteria applied by NRLM (National Rural Livelihood Mission) and PIP (Participatory Identification of Poor) for determination of a family as a poor family.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant in his second appeal mentioned that the reply provided by the CPIO was vague and not satisfactory. He further submitted that the FAA had provided a different reply. He further pointed out that from the information given it is not clear what the indicators are for PIP (Participatory Identification of Poor) for determination of a family as a poor family. He requested for complete information in this regard.
The CPIO vide written submissions dated 14.12.2022 submitted that a suitable reply was provided on 13.12.2021 and the same was as per the record available in RL division. He further submitted that additional information on PIP was given on 28.12.2021 by the FAA. He summed up stating that MoRD had provided all the available information to the applicant.
Observations:
The CPIO had informed that the indicators for deciding PIP are different for different states based on the demography, poverty and vulnerability index. The female had to be in the PIP list, and the PIP list is based on the caste category, limited income source, limited family asset, minimum literacy, one or more member being disable.
The Commission examined the second appeal and could not find any substance in rejecting the reply given by the respondents. It is imperative to mention here that the appellant mentioned that the reply is vague and not satisfactory but had not indicated why the Commission should consider the reply as vague. However, the CPIO was asked to explain whether there is any document required to determine a family as a poor family, to which he answered in the negative. Moreover, as the FAA had stated that the female can be from a poor family or someone who is vulnerable, therefore, the CPIO was asked to explain whether there is a guideline or circular in this regard, to which he submitted that no further information is available.2
Decision:
In view of the above discussion, the Commission finds no scope for any further relief in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ$भ&मा'णत स)या*पत & त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3