Central Information Commission
Mr.Javed vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 23 December, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003112/10596
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003112
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Javed
E- 44/ B- 311, New Seemapuri,
Delhi- 95
Respondent : Mr. Mange Ram
Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner (North-East) Food and Supply Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, Bunker Bhawan, Nand Giri, New Delhi - 110002 RTI application filed on : 12/08/2010 PIO replied : 08/09/2010 First appeal filed on : 22/09/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 08/10/2010 Second Appeal received on : 03/11/2010 Information Sought:
The Ration Card of the appellant was cancelled by the concerned department. Thus the appellant had sought information regarding the list of cards been finalized after Thumb Impression Review; list of cards been cancelled in this circle and reason for the same; whether notices had been issued, before canceling the cards, to the concerned people, and if yes, then the certified copies of the notices and dispatch proof of the notices; dispatch proof of the notice issued to the appellant and reason for canceling the card, etc. Reply of the PIO:
The PIO replied accordingly to the application and also informed that the list of the cards been cancelled are available on the department's website.
First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Information has been provided by the PIO.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and incorrect information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Kumar representing Mr. Javed;
Respondent : Mr. Mange Ram, Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner (North-East);
The Appellant has a BPL Card which was reviewed and supposedly updated after taking biometric data. The result of this exercise was that he had a BPL Card but the ration supplies to him were stopped. The Appellant therefore assume that his ration card was cancelled. He has sought information about cancelled ration cards but the fact is that his ration card has not been cancelled. The response to this shows the gross inefficiency of the Food and Supplies Department.
The Respondent admits that because of an error in the computer program thousands of BPL persons whose biometric data was collected have been denied ration supplies. The Appellant is one of the unfortunate people who are not getting their ration supplies. Thus a completely incompetent and inefficient modernization program to have biometric data has resulted in thousands of persons being deprived of their BPL entitlement. It is also a fact that the information was not provided in time. Within 30 days an illegal demand for additional fee was made though the Appellant is a BPL Card holder. The information has finally been provided only in December and even then no reason for the cancellation of the card in the computer system has been provided to the Appellant. Even after such a long period the Department has been unable to tell a BPL card holder why he is not getting his due entitlements. This shows that the Government's program to ensure that the poor get their entitlement has not been able to deliver even in the capital of this country because of gross inefficiency. The Commission certainly realizes that the Appellant has been put through unnecessary harassment because of the incompetence of the Department. The Commission sees this as a fit case of award of compensation for the loss and detriment suffered by her in pursing the first and second appeal for trying to establish his basic right to get food grains at a rate promised to him.
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.
The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards a compensation of Rs.2000/- for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursing this appeal.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the reasons why the Appellant's ration has been stopped since August 2010 to the Appellant before 10 January 2011.
The PIO is directed to ensure that a cheque for compensation of Rs.2000/- is given to the Appellant before 30 January 2011.
The Commission directs the Food Commissioner under its powers under Section 19(8)(a) to provide information to the Appellant outlining the reasons why the rations have not been provided to her as also determining the responsibility on the officers responsible for this. The Food Commissioner will send the information to Commission and the Appellant before 30 January 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 23 December 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SC) CC:
To, Food Commissioner Food and Supply Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, K-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi - 110002