Central Information Commission
Tekchand Agarwal vs Department Of Food & Public ... on 1 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DOFPD/C/2023/624369
Shri Tekchand Agarwal निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of Food & Public Distribution ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.07.2024
Date of Decision : 30.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.03.2023
PIO replied on : 17.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 27.04.2023
First Appellate Order on : 03.05.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.03.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"I am Tekchand Agarwal. My Father late Hukum Chand Agarwal died on 12 January 2000. He was the owner of Fair price shop 649. After his death, the Department in my own premises made a second counter 687/2 in name of Ram Singh. Till now it is running as a second counter. After applying for several petitions in The High Court and the Department, I am not getting the Shop under My own name. I am filling this RTI to know on which ground I cannot get my Fathers Ration Shop in my name. I have not even received any departmental answer why I cannot get the Shop under my name."
The Under Secretary & CPIO, Department of Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi vide letter dated 17.04.2023 replied as under:-
2. In so far as PD II Section is concerned, it is informed that the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) under NFSA 2013 is operated under the joint responsibility of the Central and the State/Union Territory (UT) Governments.
Page 1 Central Government is responsible for procurement, allocation and transportation of foodgrains upto the designated depots of the Food Corporation of India. The operational responsibilities for allocation of foodgrains within the States/UTs, identification of eligible beneficiaries families, issuance of ration cards to them, distribution of foodgrains to eligible beneficiaries under TPDS and supervision over and monitoring of functioning of Fair Price Shops (FPSs), etc. rest with the concerned State/UT Governments.
3. The information sought in the RTI application relates to the State Government of West Bengal. Therefore, your RTI request is being transferred in terms of section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to State Government of West Bengal necessary action. You may, therefore, like to approach the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, State Government of West Bengal further information in the matter. In case reply is not received from the CPIO of the concerned State/UT Government, an appeal under RTI may be preferred before the Appellate Authority in the concerned State/UT Government."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 27.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 03.05.2023 held as under:-
"2. It is seen that the issues raised in your RTI application pertain to the State Government of West Bengal. It is also seen that the reply sent by CPIO vide letter dated 17.04.2023 wherein transferring the RTI application under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the State Government is in order.
3. The PDS is operated under the joint responsibility of the Central and the State Governments. The operational responsibility including allocation within State, identification of eligible families, issue of Ration cards and supervision of the functioning of Fair Price Shops (FPSs) etc, rest with the State Governments hence further action in the matter raised in your RTI is to be taken by the Public Authority and the Appellate Authority concerned in the State Government.
4. You may, therefore, prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority concerned in the State Government of West Bengal.
5. In case you still have any grievance in this regard, you may contact me for personal hearing on a suitable date which could be ascertained from my office.
6. The appeal is disposed off as above."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Records reveal that a communication dated 18.05.2023 has been received from the O/o Rationing Officer, Govt. of West Bengal stating as under:
In connection with the subject mentioned above, it is to be informed, as per record available, your father Hukum Chand Agarwal ex-dealer of FPS-649 and was convicted and fined with Rs. 600/- and in default another one month R.l. under Naihati, P.S. Case No. 2(9)84 u/s 7(1) (a) (ii) of E.C. Act. X/55. The Page 2 convicted dealer moved in the High Court for bail and subsequently got the same and died.
As per observation and order of appeal hearing held before Hon'ble Director of General (Food) & Principal Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal, Food and Supplies, Sri R.M. Jamir, I.A.S, on 03.10.07, the compassionate ground does not sustain as are follows.
"I have considered all the documents and was submission of both the parties and I am also of the same opinion that the claim for compassionate ground does not sustain on the ground that the dealer was convicted and died without being released from court of law. The appeal is, therefore disposed of with a conclusion that the order passed by Director of Rationing, W.B. will remain valid". This order vide memo No. 195/1(5)L&L/DR/dt.- 19.11.07 has been communicated to you.
You have filed writ petition vide no W.P. No. 11904(W) of 2008, in matter of Tek Chand Agarwal v/s State of West Bengal & Ors. But inspite of several communication to you the verdict of the said court case have not been submitted to this end and you have submitted your response with son single sheet as "the matter in question has since been disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta" from where the direction of Hon'ble High Court in this regard cannot be assumed.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 19.07.2024 has been received from the CPIO reiterating the above facts.
Another written submission dated 26.07.2024 has been received from the SPIO/Sr. Deputy Secretary, Food and Supplies Department stating as under: In reference to above this is to state that the RTI petition received from CPIO, has been received on 02.05.2023 which has duly been replied by the concerned SPIO & R.O, Halisahar on 18.05.2023 which has been served by hand to the petitioner and duly received by the petitioner (Copy enclosed). In case of RTI Appeal Petition, the same has been received from Deputy Secretary (PD) & Appellate Authority and reply has been served to the Appellant by hand and the Appellant has received the same with his signature (Copy enclosed).
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present through video conference Respondent: Smt. Basabdutta Gupta - SPIO/Sr. Deputy Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, West Bengal was present through video conference while Mohd. Aftab Alam - Asstt. Section Officer was present in person during the hearing.
The parties present during hearing reiterated their respective contentions as noted above. The Complainant contended that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent and seeks redressal of his grievance.
Page 3 However, the Respondent stated that queries raised by the Complainant have been duly answered by the actual custodian of information, viz. SPIO/Sr. Deputy Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, West Bengal on the basis of information available on official records, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the RTI application was duly transferred by the CPIO, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution and the relevant custodian Respondent i.e. the SPIO in question had duly furnished appropriate response to the Complainant, on the basis of information available on record with them, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. No legal infirmity is found in the action of the PIO.
Since grievance redressal does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act, hence, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the only question which needs to be adjudicated is whether there was any deliberate or willful concealment of information. Since the foregoing discussion and deliberation between parties do not reveal any deliberate denial of information since the appropriate reply was sent by the Respondent well within the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)