Central Information Commission
Dipanshu Singh vs Transport Department Delhi on 30 September, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/607657 -UM
CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/607659-UM
CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/607662-UM
Mr. DIPANSHU SINGH
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Transport Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 5/9, Under Hill Rd,
Ludlow Castle, Civil Lines, Delhi, 110054
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.09.2022
Date of Decision : 30.09.2022
ORDER
RTI-I; CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/607657 FACTS Date of RTI application 27.09.2021 CPIO's response 28.09.2021 Date of the First Appeal 28.09.2021 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil The Appellant vide RTI application sought information regarding letter written to Commissioner Transport on 31.07.2021, as under:-
Page 1 of 5The CPIO vide letter dated 28.09.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
RTI-II:- CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/607659 FACTS Date of RTI application 27.09.2021 CPIO's response 28.09.2021 Date of the First Appeal 28.09.2021 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
The Appellant vide RTI application sought information regarding letter written to Spl. Commissioner, as under:-
The CPIO vide letter dated 28.09.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
RTI-III:- CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/607662
FACTS
Date of RTI application 27.09.2021
CPIO's response 28.09.2021
Date of the First Appeal 28.09.2021
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
Page 2 of 5
The Appellant vide RTI application sought information regarding VarunKinra System Analyst Transport Department, as under:-
The CPIO vide letter dated 28.09.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dipanshu Singh present in the hearing, Respondent: Mr. S.K Johri, Sr. System Analyst, present in the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding action taken report on his letter addressed to the Commissioner Transport, Special Commissioner and System Analyst, Transport Department on 31.07.2021 w.r.t his father ( driver) not getting relief of Rs. 5000/- during corona in year 2021 under a PSV badge holders scheme. He submitted that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. While deposing in the hearing he stated that First Appellate authority order has not been complied with till date. He said the CPIO is making mockery of the provisions of RTI act 2005 and indulging in only a formality and giving misinformation. He said that the above said amount could have helped them a lot in an adverse situation of corona, but inspite of several reminders and approaches this relief was not given by the department. He alleged that if any payment has been paid to his father then the Respondent may produce a delivery report as proof before the Commission. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that vide letters dated 27.09.2021, they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. He stated that the payment of Rs 5,000/- under the said scheme for distribution among Drivers by Transport Department, Govt. NCT of Delhi, has been paid to Shri Page 3 of 5 Anand Kumar Singh (father of the Appellant) on 25.05.2021. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 29.09.2022 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Further the Commission could not ascertain whether the amount of Rs 5000/- has actually been paid to the Appellant's father or not. Therefore, the Commission directs the Commissioner of Transport Department, Govt. of National Capital of Delhi, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi 110054, to ascertain whether the above said amount has been paid to the Appellant's father (Shri Anand Kumar Singh) or not and if it is paid then furnish a copy of proof of payment to the Commission and to the Appellant , strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. For the redressal of his grievance, if any, the Appellant may approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत)
(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598
द्वदनांक / Date: 30.09.2022
Page 4 of 5
Copy to:-
The Commissioner of Transport Department,
Govt. of National Capital of Delhi,
5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi 110054,
Page 5 of 5