CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION

(RoomNo.315,BWing,AugustKrantiBhawan,BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066)

FileNo.CIC/AD/A/2013/000263SA

(Sh.ParameshwarSinghVs.Food&SupplyDept.,Delhi)
Appellant

Sh.ParameshwarSingh

Respondent

Food&SupplyDeptt.,Delhi

Dateofhearing

06052014

Dateofdecision

08.5.2014

InformationCommissioner :

Prof.M.SridharAcharyulu
(MadabhushiSridhar)

ReferredSections

Sections 3, 19(3) & 19(8(b) of the

Result

RTIAct
Appealallowed/Compensationgranted

Theappellant is absent. ThePublicAuthorityisrepresentedbyMr.

K.K.Paliwal,Inspector,Food&SupplyDeptt.,GNCTD,Delhi.

FACTS

2.TheappellantisseekinginformationthroughhisRTIapplicationdt.2292012
regardingthestatusofhisBPLRationcardNo.55390146whichwasdepositedfor
renewalon7122007.PIOhasrepliedhimon24122012statingthatthesaidration
carddetailsarenotavailableonthecomputer.Havingreceivednoreplywithinthe
prescribedperiod,theappellantpreferredFirstAppeal30102012.FAAhasdirected
PIOon11122012toprovidetherequisiteinformationtotheappellantwithin21days.

As he could not get the requisite information, he filed the 2nd appeal before this
Commission.

Decision:

3. Heard the submissions. The Commissionis oftheviewthatthe answer

furnishedbytheRespondentisnotcompleteandappropriate.Therepresentativeof
therespondentauthority,Mr.Paliwalclaimsthatthetotalrecordisnotavailableandat
thesametimehedoesnotwanttoadmitthatitismissing.Respondentstatedthat
whenheisfeedingtherationcardnumberoftheappellantinthecomputer,thelatter
isgivingtheoutputasinvalid.Itisveryseriousmatterpendingsince2012asthe
originalapplicationforrenewalofthesaidrationcard, wasgivenin2007,which
meansthattheappellantwaseligibleforrations. Heapproachedtherespondent
authorityin2007andin2012therespondenthasraisedthequestionofinvalidityof
his ration card. The respondent office is reluctant and nonresponsive to the
applicationforrationcardandalsototheapplicationunderRTIAct.Itisclearcaseof
breachofRTIAct2005andtherespondent/PIOMr.HarishTyagi/Mr.VinayAttalin
2012andthepresentPIOMr.VimalKumar(asmentionedbytherepresentativeofthe
PublicAuthorityduringhearing),whowereresponsibleforthepropercomplianceof
FAAorder.

4. TheCommissionexpressesitsdeepdissatisfactionatthecallous
waytherespondents weredealingwiththerationrelatedcomplaints and
delayingthesanctionofrationcardandeveningivingtheinformationaboutit.
Inthiscase,first,theyclaimedthatthefileismissing,butcovereditupby
sayingthattheinformationisnotavailable,then,theythrewtheblameonthe
2

computer, stating that the computer answered as invalid. Then they did
nothingtolookintotheliabilityofapplicanttohaverationcard. Evenafter
receivinghearingnoticefromtheCIC,therespondentauthoritydidnotevince
anyinterestineitherperformingtheirdutyasresponsiblepublicservantsnor
asdesignatedCPIOtodischargethestatutoryobligationsundertheRTIAct,
2005.

Showcause
TheCommissiondirectsallthethreeofthemto

(a)

showcausewhypenaltycannotbeimposedonthemforthedelayinreplyingto

RTIapplication,
(b)tofurnishinformationtotheappellantregardingthepresentstatus
oftherationcardrenewalapplication,withoutdependingonthe
computersystem,

withintwoweeksfromthedateofreceiptofthisorder.

Compensation:

4. Theappellantinthepresentcasenotonlydidsufferduetothedenialofthe
informationrelatingtohisrationcard,buteventheinformationprovidedtohimafter
theFirstAppellateAuthorityorderdidnotserveanypurposeforwhichtheinformation
wassought..ItisnotacaseoftheRespondentthattheappellantwasnoteligiblefor
ration, the appellant as stated in Point 5 of his RTI application was seeking
informationabouthisrationcardwhichwassubmittedforrenewal.TheRespondent

authoritycannotsimplyescapetheirliabilityastotheinformationsoughtbysimply
statingthatthecomputerwasshowingasinvalid.Theissueinvolvedinthepresent
caseisofdenialoffood/dailybreadtotheappellantduetononreceiptofrequired
information.

Section 19(8) of RTI Act provides that in its decision, the Central Information
CommissionorStateInformationCommission,asthecasemaybehasthepowerto....

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other
detrimentsuffered.

InDelhiDevelopmentAuthorityvSubhashChander(W.PNo5563/2009) ,
JusticeSanjivKhannaoftheDelhiHighCourthasheldthatthe:
InformationCommissioncoulddirectpaymentofcompensationunderSection19(8)
(b)ifthelossanddetrimentsufferedwasonaccountofapplicationmadeunderthe
RighttoInformationActandfailureoftherespondentstosupplyinformation.
Inthepresentcase,theappellantsoughtinformationthroughRTIapplicationdated
22.9.2012,towhichthePIOrespondedaftermorethanthreemonthson24.12.2012
thattoafterFirstAppellateAuthorityOrdersayingthatcomputeransweredthathis
rationcardwasinvalid.Thougheligible,theappellantcouldnotgettherationfromthe
dateofhisapplicationi.e.,22.9.2012.Respondentsagreedthathewasnotineligible.
Forabout22monthstheappellantcouldneithergetrationcardnorinformationabout
it,whichmadehimtopurchasetherationfromgeneralmarketwherehehastospend
Rs 250 extra every month approximately. Thus the Commission directs the
RespondentdepartmenttopayacompensationofRs5500totheappellantforthe
losseshesufferedduetotheunduedenialofcorrectinformationtohim,immediately.

5.TheCommissionordersaccordingly.

(M.SridharAcharyulu)
InformationCommissioner
Authenticatedtruecopy

(AshwaniK.Sharma)
DesignatedOfficeer

Addressoftheparties:
1. TheCPIOunderRTI
Govt.ofNCTofDelhi
O/oAssistantCommissioner(North)
Food&SupplyDepartment
2327ShoppingComplex,GulabiBagh
Delhi

2. Sh.ParameshwarSingh
H.No.19/37AIBlockSantmnagar,
BengaliColony,Burari

Delhi
Copy also forwarded to the First Appellate Authority for serving the show cause notice on the
PIOs, Mr. Harish Tyagi, Mr. Vinay Attal and Mr. Vimal Kumar, as per para 3 of the order:3. TheJointCommissioner(North)&
TheFirstAppellateAuthorityunderRTI
Deptt.OfFoodSuppliesandConsumerAffairs
Govt.ofNCTofDelhi,R.No.103

KBlock,VikasBhavan,IPEstate,
NewDelhi110002.