CIC observed that the appellant Mr. VK Garg is blatantly misusing the RTI Act to black mail the FPS dealers for money - CIC recommended to provide the details of stock released to FPS dealers, consumption & distribution etc. on the website
The appellant is not present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. S.K.Paul, FSO.
2. The appellant has filed the above two appeals against the same Public Authority on the same subject and hence they are heard together today.
3. The appellant seeking information with respect to his earlier RTI application dated 16.12.2014 with ID no. 2311 in which CPIO asked for inspection. PIO replied on 24.1.2014. First Appeal was filed on 30.1.2014 and FAA disposed off the matter on 11.3.2014 by stating that there is no merit in the case as information has already been supplied. Hence he approached the Commission with Second appeal.
The appellant made RTI application on 6.3.2014 for seeking information with regard to FPS vacancy occurred in 2013/14. PIO gave point wise reply on 4.4.2014. Aggrieved with it appellant made First Appeal on 17.4.2014 and FAA on 12.5.2014 has disposed of the appeal by stating that information has been provided. Hence he approached the Commission with Second appeal.
4. The appellant is not present. The respondent authority made their submissions. The respondent officer facilitated inspection of the seven fair price shops on 16122014 to the appellant. He was told that the inspection of the seven fair price shops has been finished by the appellant within a short span of 2 hours, implying thereby that he has not done any inspection, but extracted the bribe money from each shop and acknowledged the inspection. He received this complaint from one of the FPS dealers he inspected. From each shop, he collected Rs.1,000/ and acknowledged the inspection. Thereafter, he has withdrawn this appeal. The Commission observes that the appellant Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg is blatantly misusing the RTI Act to extract/black mail the FPS dealers for money. With this background, the PIO is directed to examine in depth the purpose for which the appellant is asking RTI questions and if he finds any possibility of misusing, he shall not answer such questions and take appropriate action, keeping in mind that the appellant misused RTI earlier by asking for inspection of the shops. The PIO has given his written submissions in this regard. The Commission directs the PIO to paste this order in the office premises/FPSs and upload the same in their web site and give directions to the FPS dealers not to pay any money to the appellant Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg.
4. The Commission further recommends that in view of the multiple number of RTI applications and the possibility of misuse of RTI Act as reflected in the cases of Shri Vijay Kumar Garg and his associates, the Commission recommends the public authority to provide the following information on the website:
1. Total stock for each month released to the FPS dealer and monthwise details to each FPS
2. Shopwise consumption and distribution of rations;
3. Complaints, if any against the FPS dealers and action taken on complaints.
The above details shall be placed on the website and updated every month. The action taken information on the complaints shall also be updated. This would help the citizens to have information without resorting to RTI applications. The Commission would like to remind the Public Authority that this kind of information is to be placed on the public domain voluntarily by the Public Authority, as mandated by section 4(1)(b) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year; of the RTI Act. 5. The above two appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg v. Food & Supply Dept GNCTD in File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000557 File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000866