Jump to content
  • Sign in to follow this  

    Unaware clerk attends hearing on behalf of PIO


    clerk attends hearingPublic Information Officer of the food & Supply Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi sent a clerk to the Central Information Commission hearing of RTI appeal. Attending on behalf of PIO, he claimed that he does not know anything about the case and he is attending as the PIO has asked him to attend.


    In the RTI application, the current address of food & Supply Department circle No.5 office and that of Fair Price Shop No.3326, Circle­ 55 of M/s Raja Ram, and whether the FPS can shift its shop, without the food & Supply Department authority’s permission, etc were asked. The representative of the PIO claimed that there is no record available with them regarding the Fair Price Shop referred in the RTI application. CIC issued the show cause notice as to why maximum penalty cannot be imposed for their irresponsible conduct, being non­responsive to RTI application. If you have questions regarding RTI please go ahead at our forum here and post  them, our experts shall guide in drafting a good RTI for you.


    Unaware clerk attends hearing on behalf of PIO

    CIC observed that this is a serious lapse on the part of the food & Supply Department. CIC also observed that "The authority is directed to give point­wise revised ­ reply to the RTI applicant on all the four questions within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and the Commission directs the concerned PIO Mr. Shankar Manjhi and the representative sent by him for the hearing, Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, UDC to explain why maximum penalty cannot be imposed for their irresponsible conduct, being non­responsive to RTI application."


    The link to the decision is available here! (Sh. Suresh Kumar Vs. Food & Supply Dept). Do you have anything to add to the story, kindly post it in the comments below. The Decision has been taken from the CIC website available on the web. For authentic true copy of the decision, kindly contact CIC.

    Sign in to follow this  

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    The reply to the RTI application is signed by the PIO and not by the UDC. So responsibi,ity is that of PIO and not of the UDC. If the UDC gives a draft reply for approval, it the responsibility of the PIO to verify it before signing. SO, in my opinion the UDC can not be held responsible but ony the PIO. I wonder why the CIC is questioning the UDC who has no power in decision making. Moreover, I do not understand why a show cause notice has to be issued when the official has been summoned in person & interrogated.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy