Dismissed

Prema Devi v. Food & Supply Department

Delhi HC7 Dec 2018LPA/682/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, a BPL ration card holder, challenged an RBI court order setting aside a CIC penalty for failure to provide information within time. The court held that as public notifications and website details informed holders about biometric requirements, individual information was not needed, so no penalty was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was rejected and the applications disposed of.

Prema Devi Vs Food & Supply Department — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~40

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 682/2018 & CM APPLs. 51207-10/2018

¶4

PREMA DEVI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

FOOD & SUPPLY DEPARTMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Santosh Tripathi, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Rishabh Ostwal Mr. Shashank Tiwari, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶8

O R D E R % 07.12.2018

¶9

CM APPL. 51208/2018 (exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

CM APPL. 51210/2018 (condonation of delay)

¶13

In view of the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

LPA 682/2018 & CM APPLs. 51207/2018 (stay) & 51209/2018 (addl. docs.)

¶16

Seeking exception to an order passed by the learned writ court on 02.08.2018 in the matter of interfering with an order passed by the Central

¶17

LPA 682/2018 Page 1 of 3

¶18

Information Commission (CIC) imposing a cost of `26,000/- on the respondent Department, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

¶19

Appellant was a holder of a ration card which was supplied to her on account of the fact that she belonged to the BPL Category. A general circular was issued by the respondent Department which was also available on the website and wide publicity was given to all concerned that in case the holder of a card does not give the biometrics their ration card may be deactivated.

¶20

Inter alia contending that the appellant was not informed about the same personally which prevented her from updating the biometrics, as a result thereof, she could not use her ration card for 26 months when it remained under activation. She filed the application for information, namely, the reason for deactivation. Holding that the information was not given within time, the cost in question of 26,000/- has been imposed as penalty @ 1,000/- per month being the penalty calculated co-relating it to the period when the appellant could not use the ration card.

¶21

On an appeal filed by the Department, the learned writ court found that the entire information was available in public domain. It was not required to be specifically provided to each and every ration card holder. It is also an admitted position that notifications were issued and the appellant herself got her ration card activated after furnishing the information. Holding that once the information was available in public domain, the same cannot be construed as denial of information, the penalty of `26,000/- imposed has been set aside.

¶22

In our considered view, in doing so the learned writ court has not committed any error warranting reconsideration. Penalty could be imposed

¶23

LPA 682/2018 Page 2 of 3

¶24

only if there was delay or denial of supplying the information. Once it is an admitted position that all ration card holders were publically informed through public domain and website medium that they have to update the biometrics failing which the ration card would be deactivated, there was no necessity for individual information to be given and once the information was available in public domain, there was no question of withholding or delay in supplying information and consequently invoking the penal provision in the facts and circumstances of the case was not called for. 6. The appeal is therefore rejected. The pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶27

DECEMBER 07, 2018 kks

¶28

LPA 682/2018 Page 3 of 3

Prema Devi v. Food & Supply Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prema Devi v. Food & Supply Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shardha Katyal & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Karamjeet Kaur & Ors. Vs Union of India

Dr. Sanjay Kulshrestha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Central Public Information Officer Vs Urmilesh Kumar

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of (Nct of) Delhi and Ors.

Court on Its Motion Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.