An RTI application led to proper re-examination of the actions of the Food and Supplies Department of the GNCTD in allotting licenses for kerosene oil depots. This is the 65th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while disposing an appeal, appreciated the fact that the Food and Supplies Department of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) corrected its mistakes and adopting its policy properly.

While giving this important judgement on 10 September 2009, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “...the Right to Information (RTI) application led to proper re-examination of the actions of the department in allotting kerosene oil depot licenses. The order by the assistant commissioner (East) appears to admit that the high court’s order has not been implemented properly earlier.”

Delhi resident Krisha Gupta, on 15 October 2009, sought information about policy for allotting kerosene depots to unemployed graduates from the Food and Supplies Department of the GNCTD.

He sought information on six points regarding copy of order by which preferences was given to unemployed graduates and according to the reply of FSO, copy of govt. order by which this policy had been discontinued, reasons for not listing the appellant’s application in the scrutiny list dated 8 February 2008, deficiencies in his application as per the check list, under which rules/law application form of Anjana Goyal were found legal or illegal and so on.

On 20 November 2009, the PIO sent his reply stating that...
1.     A) This is concerned with HQ (policy) Since concerned information was provided by  
              Policy Branch.
        B) It is concerned with HQ.

          C) It is a decision given by the Food & Supply Commissioner.

2.       A) It is concerned with departmental process.

          B) -do-

          C) -do-

3. All concerned certificates/documents were presented before screening committee/selection board on which decision made by the committee/board. An explanation of the reason and bases of the decision made the committee cannot be done.

4.       (A)     It is the decision of the board/committee.

          (B)     -do-

5.       (A)     -do-

          (B)     -do-

6.     (A) Due to remand of the CIC, there was to make decision after hearing Krisha Gupta   

(appellant) because the appellant was not heard on 20 February 2009.

          (B)     -do-

          (C)     It is the decision made by chairman (Selection Board).

          (D)    It is related departmental procedures.

          (E)     -do-            

          (F)     -do-

          (G)    -do-

Not satisfied with the reply, Gupta then filed his first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) gave an order on 14 January 2010, in which he stated...

“The appellant states that the Commissioner (F & S) (CFS) has himself stated in his order that preference can be given by order dated 25 September 2008. However, on reading the order it is the point No 3, whether an unemployed graduate can be given a preferential treatment in this case or not?

“The appellant has shown copy of Form No. A, wherein 2(d) is also notified for the information that other things being equal, preference will be given to the applicants belonging to (a), (b), (c), (d), unemployed graduate can be given a preferential treatment in this case or not.

“On character certificate, the appellant has shown a checklist, required at Serial No 4: Character Certificate from a gazetted officer, a copy of which is available with the appellant. The appellant states that there was an amendment as mentioned in the PGC order dated 17 September 2009. The appellant has shown a copy of the order available with him. Hence, Information has been provided to him.

“Now, the Selection Board in its minutes of meeting on 20 February 2009 has stated in para-2 to submit character certificate from two reputed persons of the locality. A copy of the minutes has been provided to the appellant by the department.

The vacancy was mentioned before the Delhi High Court. He has shown the order of Delhi High Court dated 13 December 2004, the appeal order of SS Rathore, No6/2008 stating that there is no requirement of notification of vacancy as the kerosene oil depot (KOD) one for more in excess of the numbers of cards. This was overruled by the CFS by order dated 23 September 2008.”

Gupta then filed his second appeal before the CIC.

During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, said Gupta had sent a letter to the Commission on 7 May 2010 stating that he received the information. Gupta further stated that the department has now adopted its policy properly.

“The papers attached by him show that the RTI application led to proper re-examination of the actions of the department in allotting kerosene oil depot licenses and the order by the Assistant Commission (East) appears to admit that the high court order had not been implemented properly earlier. The Commission records its appreciation of the fact that it appears the department has corrected its mistake on its own,” Mr Gandhi said.

He then disposed off the appeal.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000777/7776

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_000777_7776.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010//000777

Appellant                                  : Krisha Gupta,

                                                  Delhi-110091

Respondent                              : Anil Kaushal

                                                   APIO & FSO

                                                   O/o the Asst Commissioner, (East District),

                                                  Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs,

                                                  Govt of NCT of Delhi,

                                                  DDA Complex,

                                                  Dayanand Vihar, Delhi-110092