Central Information Commission
Mr.Manmohan vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 19 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001173/13704Adjunct-I
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001173
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Manmohan Singh,
C/o Bhalswa Lok Shakti Manch,
B-7/115, Bhalswa Resettlement Colony,
Delhi - 110044
Respondent (1) : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar
PIO & Assistant Commissioner (NW) Food & Supply Department, GNCTD C-Block, Pocket C, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi 110088 (2) : Mr. Chokhe Lal PIO & Assistant Commissioner (HQ) Food & Supply Department, GNCTD K-Block, Vikash Bhawan, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 22/12/2010 PIO replied on : 29/03/2011 First Appeal filed on : 28/02/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : 01/04/2011 Second Appeal received on : 29/04/2011 Information Sought:
1. In the year 2007, how many applications were received for renewal of cards and regarding what category? Provide the information regarding the application submitted and the respective categories.
2. Provide the information regarding the category and the number of cards which were renewed and cancelled respectively.
3. What were the reasons for cancelling the request? How were those reasons established in the department? Provide the attached copy of the same.
4. Make two separate lists of the cards which were renewed and cancelled in the order specified in the application. Provide the soft copy of the same.
Reply of PIO:
With reference to the application, the required information is enclosed with the reply. In providing this information the reply of FSO/APIOs, Circle - 01, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 13 has been taken under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005.
From Circle 01
1. Application for BPL and AAY cards were received. Among which 7659 were BPL and 1127 were AAY.
2. 6841 BPL cards were renewed and 881 were rejected. AAY was not repeated.Page 1 of 5
3. Having domestic salary more than what is prescribed and not being on the address stated are the reasons for which the applications were rejected.
From Circle 05
1. In the year 2007, application for renewal of BPL and AAY cards were received. Related record copy has been attached.
2. No such information is available in the circle. A related copy is attached.
3. Related copy received from a worker is attached.
4. Related copy received from a worker is attached.
From Circle 06
1. 5421 and 1270 applications regarding renewal for BPL and Antoday cards received respectively.
2. Among these applications, 792 BPL cards and 823 Antoday cards were renewed while rests were cancelled.
3. There were many reasons for which the cards were cancelled like for not being on the address specified, having salary more than what is prescribed, etc. These cards were investigated by the inspector.
4. No such information is available in the circle.
From Circle 07
1. In 2007, BPL and AAY cards were renewed. Circle 7 was established in September 2009 hence no information is available for the year 2007.
2. Circle 7 was established in September 2009 hence no information is available for the year 2007.
3. Information not available.
4. As above.
From Circle 08
1. In 2007, BPL and AAY cards were renewed. Circle 8 was established in September 2009 hence no information is available for the year 2007.
2. Circle 8 was established in September 2009 hence no information is available for the year 2007.
3. Information not available.
4. As above.
From Circle 09
1. Circle 09 came into existence in September 2009 hence no information is available for the year 2007.
2. As above. The list for current active cards is attached.
3. No such information is available as per the records.
4. The soft copy (C.D) for Circle 09 can be attained by depositing Rs.50/- in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Shalimar.
From Circle 10
1. & 2.In the year 2007, total 7529 application for BPL cards were received. Out of that 6317 were printed 1212 were rejected. 1478 application for AAY cards were received, out of that 1204 cards were printed while 274 were rejected.
3. Cards are prepared as per the guidelines of the department i.e. income limit, etc. out of these guidelines the applications were rejected.
4. Information of the cancelled application is not available, and existing card information can be obtained after submission of Rs. 50/- in AC (NW), Shalimar Bagh.
From Circle 13
1. 6183 applications received for renewal of BPL and AAY cards.
2. 3068 BPL/AAY cards made and 3115 BPL/AAY were cancelled.
3. There are various reasons for cancellations. To attain the photocopy of the reasons for cancellation, deposit Rs 2 per page (61 *2) in the office of Assistant Commissioner.Page 2 of 5
4. The information is not made in the form it is being asked for.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No Reply received from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that the PIO provided substantial information to the appellant but till then the appellant had filed the first appeal. The FAA directed the PIO (NW) to provide the information to the appellant by registered post within 15 days even though it had already been sent, but this time the requisite information should be sent after consolidation of the reports received from the respective circles.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The reply received from the PIO is incomplete, incorrect, misleading, false and not satisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 28 July 2011:
Following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Manmohan Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Sukram Pal, FSO(C-9), Mr. Ajit Singh, FSO(C-4) Timarpur, Mr. Rajendra, FSO(C-
24) Pusa; Mr. Tara Chand, FSO(C-14) Shalimar Bagh, Mr. K. P. Kohli, FSO(C-66), Mr. Lila Ram, FSO(C-61) Gandhi Nagar, Mr. K.K. Sharma, FSO(C-69), Mr. Ashok Kumar, FSO(C-60) Krishna Nagar, Mr. R. G. Bagade, Link Officer (C-21), Mr. R. R. Meena, FSO(C-58), Mr. Ghanshyam FSO(57), Mr. O. P. Gupta, FSO(C-56), Mrs. Ravinder Kaur, FSO(C-25), Mr. Nirmala Rani, FSO(C-
16), Mr. R. H. Meena, FSO(C-49), Mr. Vrijendra, FSO(C-62) and Mr. H. P. Meena, PIO & AC(New Delhi); Mr. Dayanand, FSO(C-48), Asian Market, Mr. Pratap Singh, FSO(C-23) Karol Bagh, Mr. P. S. Saini, FSO(C-46) Qutub Institutional Area, Mr. Gyan Singh, FSO(C-42) Lajpat Nagar, Mr. G. K. Ahuja, FSO(C-51) Kalkaji, Mr. A. P. Kardam, FSO(C-52) Okhla, Mr. Subhas, FSO(C-45) Mehrauli, Mr. Alok Bhattarcharya, FSO(C-47) Devli, Mr. K. S. Chug, FSO(C53) Badarpur, Mr. Srikant, Inspector(C-2) Burari and Mr. Chokhe Lal, PIO & AC(HQ);
"The Commission notes that 27 officers have come from the Food and Supplies Department for this hearing. This shows why the F&S Department is unable to deliver services to the citizens since they are unnecessarily wasting their times in action which have no meaning. The FAA had clearly directed on 01/04/2011 that PIO(NW) was directed to supply the consolidated information from various circles within 15 days to the Appellant. This has not been done. Besides, some of the Officers are claiming that they have sent the information to the PIO(HQ) which has not been received by the Appellant. The 27 Officers present were asked by the Commission the purpose for coming here. They say they have come here because various Assistant Commissioners had told them to come before the Commission. PIO(HQ) Mr. Chokhe Lal states that he has sent the required CDs for query-4 to the Appellant on 14/02/2011 by speed post but the Appellant states he has not received this. The respondent Mr. Chokhe Lal has not brought any proof to show that these CDs were indeed sent to the Appellant. Despite the Commission mentioning in its hearing notice that the proof of dispatch should be brought Mr. Chokhe lal has not brought the relevant papers. The Commission recommends to the Food Commissioner Mr. Dharam Pal to investigate into this complete waste of public resources and money and take corrective action if the Department has to deliver any meaningful service to the Citizens.
The Commission directs Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, PIO/AC(NW) to send the consolidated information on queries 1, 2 & 3 to the Appellant before 16 August 2011. The Commission also directs PIO(HQ) Mr. Chokhe Lal to confirm that all the CDs have been sent to the Appellant. If they have not been sent fresh CDs will be sent to the Appellant before 16 August 2011."
Commission's Decision dated 28 July 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.Page 3 of 5
"The PIOs of North West and Head Quarters are directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 16 August 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIOs of North West and Head Quarters within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIOs are guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, PIO/AC(NW) and Mr. Chokhe Lal PIO/AC(HQ) will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 23 August 2011 at 10.30AM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant."
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 23/08/2011:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Chokhey Lal, PIO & AC(HQ) and Mr. Dhirender Kumar, PIO & AC(NW);
"The PIO Mr. Chokhey Lal has submitted his written submissions, wherein it is mentioned that the CDs were furnished to the Appellant on 25/02/2011. He has submitted relevant copy of the speed post receipt. After the Commission's order dated 28/07/2011 the said CDs have again been sent to the Appellant. The PIO(NW) Mr. Dhirender Kumar has submitted his written submissions, wherein it is mentioned that the information related to all circles except circle 41 & 42 and 54 to 62 has been furnished to the Appellant.
Ms. Pushpa is claiming that she has appeared on behalf of the appellant but she has no authority letter from the Appellant. She is claiming that the information furnished to the Appellant is neither complete nor attested.
The respondents have given certain information but in the CD provided to the Appellant no reasons for rejection of the cards mentioned. The respondents state this is not mentioned. This is a very bad practice and the Commissions has also given an order that reasons for rejection of ration card application should be mentioned even on the website of the department. The Commission directs the PIO(HQ) to ensure that the reasons for rejection of ration cards are mentioned. Besides information regarding circle 41 & 42 and 54 to 62 has not been provided to the Appellant since this information has not been provided by the concerned PIOs. The respondent states that the PIOs responsible are Mr. H. P. Meena, AC(New Delhi) and Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC(East). The Commission issues a showcause notice to Mr. H. P. Meena, AC(New Delhi) and Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC(East) to appear before the Commission on 19 September 2011 at 04.30PM. They will also bring the information with respect to their respective circles to the Commission so that it may be handed over to the Appellant."
Adjunct Decision dated 23 August 2011:
Mr. H. P. Meena, AC(New Delhi) and Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC(East) to appear before the Commission on 19 September 2011 at 04.30PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed and disciplinary action under Section 20(1) should not be recommended against them for defying the order of the Commission. They will also bring the information of their respective circles to the Commission on 19/09/2011.Page 4 of 5
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIOs are directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with them.
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 19/09/2011:
Appellant: Mr. Manmohan Singh;
Respondent: Mr. H. P. Meena, AC(New Delhi); Mr. Gian Chand, FSO(C-54); Mr. Gian Singh, FSO(C-42) and Mr. Shakti Bangar, FSO(C-41);
The respondent show that they had provided the information to the Appellant initially but had not provided the reasons for rejection since no record has been kept about it in the database. In view of this the Commission is dropping the penalty proceedings. The PIOs have provided the information but had not given any reasons for rejection of cards. The Commission has earlier directed the department to ensure that reasons for rejection are putup on the website but the department stubbornly refuses to record the reasons for rejection in its database. Consequently citizens make the charge that rejection is based on the facts that the bribes are not paid. It is beyond the Commission's understanding why this simple indicator of transparency cannot be adhered to.
The Commission had by its decision no. CIC/SG/A/2009/001213+1214/3969 dated 02 July 2009 directed to ensure that the list of people for APL & BPL cards with the dates of application dated on which the cards are given to them and reasons for rejection if any with dates must be provided suo- moto by the public authority on its website. The PIO will inform the appropriate officer about this requirement of Section 4 and ensure that this is done before 15 August 2009. Subsequently the Commission had reminded the Food & Supplies department number of times about this. In the absence of record of reasons for rejection of Ration Cards no accountability can be maintained by the department.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission again directs the Food Commissioner that reasons for rejection of cards are recorded on the database and displayed on the website of the department. The Food Commissioner will ensure that this is done before 30 October 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 19 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SS) Copy to:
To, Food Commisioner, Food and Supplies Department;
K-Block, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi Page 5 of 5