Central Information Commission
Rakesh Agarwal vs Transport Department Delhi on 16 February, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/TDDEL/C/2023/604726
Rakesh Agarwal ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Commissioner, Transport
Transport Department
5/9 Underhill Road
Delhi - 110054 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13-02-2024
Date of Decision : 16-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 17-12-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25-01-2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1. The Total number of autorickshaws registered in Delhi series-wise i.e. S, T, U, V, and so on.
2. No. of autorickshaws for which GPS signals are being received in the control room.
3. Total no. of taxis registered in Delhi type-wise i.e. city taxis, black and yellow taxis, tourist taxis, etc.
4. No. of taxis for which GPS signals are being received in the control room.
5. Please provide details of the operation of the panic button mechanism.
6. On pressing the panic button, does the alert go to Delhi police?
7. Is it mandatory to have a panic button in autorickshaws and city taxis?"
The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Man Mohan, System Analyst (IT) and Shri Sudist Ranjan, Junior Assistant & LDC (on behalf of Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO), attended the hearing.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance.
Shri Man Mohan, System Analyst (IT), submitted that point No. 4 of RTI Application was transferred to their office vide letter dated 20.01.2023 and since the information sought in point No. 4 does not pertains to IT Branch, a reply to this effect has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 25.01.2023 and the same is available on record.
Shri Sudist Ranjan, Junior Assistant (on behalf of Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO), submitted that as per the records available with him, no reply was given to the Complainant.
2Upon being queried by the Commission as to whether the information sought in the RTI Application pertains to their department, he replied that he is not aware of the facts of instant case.
A written submission has been received from Senior System Analyst & PIO, vide letter dated 12.02.2024, a copy of which has also been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. Since Shri Man Mohan, System Analyst (IT), has provided adequate reply to the Complainant on point No. 4 of the RTI Application based on available records, no mala fide can be attributed against their department. The Commission observes that no reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Complainant from the office of Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO. Further Shri Sudist Ranjan, Junior Assistant, appearing on behalf of the PIO, has come before the Commission completely unprepared and unaware of the facts of the instant case, which raises apprehension that information has deliberately not been given to the Complainant with a mala fide intent.
The Commission is anguished to note that Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO, has sent an official of the rank equivalent to a LDC (lower most rung in the ministerial staff below which only Group-D employees are left), to plead the matter before the bench and that too without any authorization letter and without explaining any reason for his absence. This approach violates the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and accordingly the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO, and he is admonished for the same besides being called to show cause. The act of the Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO, tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission. In view of the above, inaction on his part is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to 3 direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, to Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO, for neither providing any reply qua the instant RTI Application to the Complainant nor participating in the instant hearing in person.
A copy of this order is marked to the FAA who shall ensure that a copy of this order is received by the erring PIO. The FAA is further directed to ensure that under all circumstances, written submissions of the erring PIO should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which ex-parte decision shall be taken.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 16-02-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 011- 26181827 Date 4