Relevant Facts Emerg... v. Mr. Irshad, C-249, G..., Central Information Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003248/10751, Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003248

Advocates

Judges

Shailesh Gandhi, IC

Acts

Section 7(6) of RTI Act. Shailesh Gandhi Information

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Mr. Irshad, filed an RTI application on 03/08/2010 seeking detailed information related to multiple Fair Price Shops (FPS) in Block No. 65, including data on Kerosene Distribution Orders (K.D.O), LPG connections, cardholder details, inquiry reports, complaints, and various registers and documents. The Public Information Officer (PIO), Mr. Mange Ram, responded on 28/08/2010, indicating that certain information could be accessed through inspection but did not provide complete responses in writing. The appellant filed a first appeal on 23/09/2010, claiming the reply was incomplete. The order of the First Appellate Authority was not enclosed. Subsequently, a second appeal was filed on 19/11/2010, reiterating that the information provided was incomplete and requesting penalties and cost reimbursement from the respondent. During the hearing, the respondent stated that no specific time period was mentioned by the appellant for the information sought and that the appellant did not come for inspection of records. The appellant's presence or inspection was not confirmed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the PIO provided complete and adequate information in response to the RTI application.
Whether the appellant was entitled to penalty on the respondent for incomplete disclosure.
Whether the appellant was entitled to reimbursement of costs incurred in filing appeals.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The information provided by the PIO was incomplete.
Penalty should be imposed on the respondent for non-compliance.
The respondent should bear the costs incurred in filing the appeals.

Respondent's Arguments

No specific time period was mentioned in the RTI application, making it difficult to provide exact information.
Appellant was invited to inspect records to obtain information but did not do so.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that the appellant had not specified any time period for the information sought, which limited the scope of the PIO's response. The respondent had offered the appellant an opportunity to inspect the records to obtain the information, but the appellant did not appear for inspection or indicate if he availed this opportunity. Given these circumstances, the court concluded that the PIO's response was appropriate under the RTI Act. The court did not find grounds to impose a penalty or order reimbursement of costs.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISPOSED OF.

The decision directly affects the parties by closing the appeal without penalty or cost reimbursement. No new precedent was established by this decision.

Show full summary ...

Relevant Facts Emerging From The Appeal: v. Mr. Irshad, C-249, Gali No. 9, Main Road, Bhajan Pura, Delhi 110053

Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003248/10751 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003248 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Irshad C-249, Gali No. 9, Main Road, Bhajan Pura, Delhi 110053 Respondent : Mr. Mange Ram Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner (North-East) Food Supplies Department Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi D.C. Office Complex, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093 RTI application filed on : 03/08/2010 PIO replied : 28/08/2010 First appeal filed on : 23/09/2010 First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed Second Appeal received on : 19/11/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO The appellant sought information regarding shop number 7128, 6885, 6772, 8798, 108, 2019, 33165891, 8353, 6171 and F.P.S in Block No. 65.

1. Copy of these F.P.S shops link to K.D.O of these shops should be made available with the details such as K.D.O.s A.P.L, cash memo, Master Register, etc. The appellant can sought information during the inspection.

2. Whether the people who have L.P.G connection are allowed to get Kerosene oil. If not, then who is responsible for their distribution.

3. No. of A.A.Y, B.P.L and A.P.L card in the aforementioned shops. The appellant can sought information during the inspection.

4. Inquiry report of the aforementioned cards with the name of investigating officers.

5. Which officers will be responsible and what action will be taken against them who have given them these cards even when they are using L.P.G.

6. Whether the owners of the aforementioned shop deposited any documents during the inspection for the card. If yes, then date and time where I can inspect these documents. The appellant can sought information during the inspection.

7. No. of complaints in the time period 02/08/2009 to 02/08/2010 with reasons registered against these shops. The action taken in regard to the complaints. No complaints

8. Copies of the above complaints. No complaints

9. Copy of A.P.L stamping list. The appellant can sought information during the inspection.

10. Copy of master register The appellant can sought information during the inspection.

11. Copy of the cash memo. The appellant can sought information during the inspection.

12. Copy of daily sale register. The appellant can sought information during the inspection. Grounds for the First Appeal: The reply given by the PIO was incomplete. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): Not enclosed. Grounds for the Second Appeal: The information given to the appellant was incomplete. There should be penalty on the respondent for the same. Furthermore the respondent should be asked to pay for the cost incurred by appellant in filing both he appeals. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant : Absent; Respondent : Mr. Mange Ram, Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner (North-East); Mr. R. R. Upadhyay, Inspector (C-63); The Respondent has informed the appellant that since no period has been mentioned for which the information has been sought he should come and inspect the records. After this the Respondent states that the Appellant did not come for the inspection of the relevant records. The Appellant has also not indicated whether he went for the inspection of the relevant records. Decision: The Appeal is disposed. 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

03 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR)

Relevant Facts Emerg... v. Mr. Irshad, C-249, G...