Central Information Commission
Shri Tejpal Singh vs Addl. Commr Of Police (Traffic) on 17 November, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00669 dated 14-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Tejpal Singh
Respondent: Addl. Commr of Police (Traffic)
FACTS
By an application of 12-7-06 Shri Tejpal Singh of Gokhale Market, Delhi applied to Addl. Commissioner Police, Traffic seeking information on four points in terms of order dated 20-11-1997 of the Supreme Court in WP No. C-13029/86 - M.C. Mehta vs. UOI & Ors. This matter came up before us in Second Appeal against an order of 15-2-07 of Addl. Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
This case was heard on 16.10.2008. The following were present:
Appellant Shri S. L. Mendiratta Shri K.S.Chahal Shri Rapinder Pal Singh Shri Pritam Singh However, we found that the applicant Shri Tej Pal Singh is not among those present.
Copy of the response stated to have been given vide letter No.3315/Compt.Br/Traffic dated 28.8.06 rejecting the request has been attached. In quoting this in the first appeal, appellant has referred to 12 questions to which he has received answers. In his first appeal and appeal before us, moreover, appellant has referred to an application of 31.7.06. He has also attached copies of the letter of DCP (Traffic) of 17.7.06 forwarding this application to the Commissioner, STA, Govt. of NCT Delhi and Chief Engineer, PWD, KG Marg, New Delhi, which would indicate that 31.7.06 is either not a reference to the application of 12.7.06 or that the application referred to is another application altogether, of which we do not have a copy on record.1
Appellant Shri Tej Pal Singh had indeed moved a first appeal on 1.2.'07, which was deemed time barred by First Appellate Authority in his order of 15.2.07 on the following grounds:
"I have carefully examined the appeal and the information provided by PIO/ Traffic vide his order dated 28.08.2006 in response to the appellant's application dated 31.07.2006. I have observed that the appellant has been provided complete and sufficient information available with the Traffic Police.
In the instant case the appellant was provided complete available information with the PIO/Traffic within the specified time limit and as such there is no justification infilling the appeal after a period of 156 days and the reasons cited for the delay are also not justified."
Upon the contradictions in applications submitted and appealed being brought to the notice of representatives of the appellant present in the hearing, they sought adjournment. The adjournment was, therefore, allowed to 17.11.2008 at 11.30 a.m. Respondents Addl. Commissioner of Police, who was not present in the hearing were directed to be suitably informed.
The appeal was then heard on 17-11-2008. The following are present:-
Appellants Shri S. L. Mendiratta Shri K.S.Chahal Shri R. P. Singh Shri Pritam Singh Addl. Commissioner of Police Traffic is again not present, although informed of the date of hearing by our letter of 8-11-'08 together with a telephone call made by the Registry at 11.45 a.m. today.
Shri S.L. Mendiratta representing appellant submitted that the present appeal was indeed against information supplied, but not against the application of 12-11-06. This was in fact an appeal against the response received to an application of 31-7-06 of which he submitted a copy. In this application the following is the information sought:2
"In terms of the order dated 20.11.97 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C ) No. 13029 of 1986, case titled M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and others. Kindly give us the following information, comments and documents to support in these queries:-
(a) Tell us the details of the segregated bus lanes on the roads, on the route from ISBT, Kashmere Gate to Singhu Border, ISBT Kashmere Gate to Tikri Border, ISBT Kashmere Gate to Badarpur Border, ISBT Sarai Kale Khan to Rajokhri Border, ISBT Sarai Kale Khan to Ghaziabad Border. Give Map of roads mentioning particulars of the segregated Bus Lane.
(b) Since when the segregated bus lanes had been unmarked and under which official letter(S), give letter(s) Nos. under which these segregated bus lane had been created on the routes mentioned above.
(c) Tell us the width of these segregated bus lanes and on which side of the road it is unmarked. Starting point (i.e. Left side point) and finish point. Give full dimensions with maps.
(d) Do all the bus lanes on the roads mentioned in Para (a) above have road markings and what type of traffic markings are there. Give the particulars of roads on which road markings are not there.
(e) Is on the segregated bus lanes only buses are plying or some other type of vehicles have been plying. Give the details of type of vehicles which are plying with your permission or without your permission.
(f) How many road signs mentioning the segregated bus lanes have been installed on the roads as mentioned in paragraph (a) and they are on which places. Give details.
(g) From 1997 to till date tell the names of the SDM's who had been authorized to head the flying squads, give the details of the period of these SDM's. Further give the details i.e. names and designation of other members of flying squad, give the letter numbers of the office letters authorizing these SDM's to head the flying squads. Give details of departments of members of Flying Squads.
Give copy of all these letters.
(h) How many vehicles had been prosecuted from 1997 to till date for plying on the roads mentioned in paragraph (A) for plying in the segregated bus lanes. Give full particulars of type of action taken.
3(i) What steps had been taken to stop other vehicles for not running in segregated bus lanes. Give details.
(j) On which side of the road the slow moving vehicles- like cycles, rickshaws, scooter, motor cycles, animal carts, etc ply on the roads mentioned in paragraph no. (a). Have any traffic signboards had been installed for, where by it had been mentioned that these vehicles have to ply in lane specified for them. Give details.
(k) In case of turning to right direction can the bus come out of the segregated bus lane and from which distance it can come out of the segregated bus lane and whether any road markings had been put of the road. Explain the type of markings on the roads mentioned in paragraph (a). Give the lane changing zones. Give maps of lane changing zone.
(l) In case the SDM's have not been authorized as mentioned in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, then which officials are prosecuting by mentioning the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Give the names and designations of these officials. The particulars should be of all the officials since 1997 that illegally sending notices/ prosecuting by mentioning the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."
It was to this application that the response of 28-8-'06 was addressed against which the first appeal was moved by appellant on 1-2-07. Upon this, Shri M.S. Upadhye, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Traffic in his order of 15-2- 07 has held as follows:
"I have carefully examined the appeal and the information provided by PIO/ Traffic vide his order dated 28.8.2006 in response to the appellant's application dated 31.7.2006. I have observed that the appellant has been provided complete and sufficient information available with the Traffic Police."
He has, therefore, gone on to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds:
"In the instant case the appellant was provided complete available information with the PIO/ Traffic within the specified time limit and as such there is no justification in filing the appeal after a period of 156 days and the reasons cited for the delay are also not justified."4
In arguing the case before us appellants have pleaded only that condoning a delay in the matter of appeals is routine and in this matter may also be agreed to.
DECISION NOTICE We find that in deciding the appeal 1st Appellate Authority Shri M.S. Upadhye has held that the information sought by appellant has, in fact, been provided to him. He has then gone on to hold the appeal debarred as a result of delay. Quite clearly the two decisions are contradictory.
Besides, 1st Appellate Authority Shri M.S. Upadhye or the CPIO had every opportunity to contest the appeal before us having received notices both for the initial hearing and for the adjourned hearing and a telephone call to boot. Yet, Addl. Commissioner of Police Shri. Upadhye has failed to summon the courtesy of appearing himself or through a representative before us.
The decision of 1st Appellate Authority Shri M.S. Upadhyay is set aside. He will now hear the first appeal and ensure that all the information held by his Department on the subject on which information has been sought is provided to the appellant, the whole process being completed within 15 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice under intimation to Shri P.K.P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, CIC. This Appeal is thus allowed. We will rule on costs in case there is any violation of time limits decreed above Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 17-11-2008 5 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 17-11-2008 6