Central Information Commission
Rakesh Agarwal vs Office Of The Registrar Cooperative ... on 27 May, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/622542
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/623980
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/635967
CIC/RECOS/A/2018/624749
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/642160
Shri Rakesh Agarwal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/Office In-charge, TransportDept., Delhi
PIO/MLO (ARU), Burari, Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
PIO/Asst. Registrar (Banking),RCS, New Delhi
PIO/Asst. Registrar (Audit), RCS,New Delhi
PIO/Asst. Registrar (RTI), RCS,New Delhi
PIO/Dy. Commissioner (Admin), Transport Dept.,
Delhi
PIO/Exe. Engineer (Bldg.-I), SDMC,New Delhi
Through: Sh. Rajesh Kumar - MLO/ARU and Sh.
M G Sathya-AR, Banking, RCS
Date of Hearing : 26.05.2020
Date of Decision : 27.05.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
622542 10.07.2017 Nil 31.08.2017 18.05.2018
623980 23.01.2018 07.03.2018 24.05.2018 13.06.2018
624749 23.01.2018 28.02.2018 20.03.2018 30.05.2018
635967 08.08.2018 Nil 28.09.2018 Nil
642160 11.10.2018 11.12.2018 28.01.2019 08.02.2019
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/622542
Page 1 of 7
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 10.07.2017seeking copy of
the entire file concerning the upcoming City Taxi Scheme which is likely to be
notified soon. He sought that the file should include all notings, correspondence,
orders, circulars, representations, etc.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated
31.08.2017. FAA vide order dated 18.05.2018 disposed off the first appeal
stating:"...The Appellant may inspect the official record on any working day to get the
information and photocopies."
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the
instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Commission is in receipt of submissions dated 13.03.2020 from the MLO/ARU-Sh. Rajesh Kumar, pointing out:
i. The software of the online portal of the respondent was not working properly during the relevant period when the RTI application was filed by the appellant, hence PIO was unable to provide a response; ii. Due to other pressing official preoccupations and technical/software problem, the reply to the above RTI application could not be provided;
iii. The copy of the entire file containing the information sought by the appellant was sent to him, with the submissions in the form of a CD.
In order to maintain social distancing in the wake of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, hearing is conducted through audio conference. Appellant has reiterated facts of his case, revealing that information sought by him was denied, in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Respondent has pointed out that information has now been provided by the respondent vide reply dated 13.03.2020, which probably has not been received by the appellant due to a change of his address, as pointed out by appellant during the hearing. The respondent has further emphasised that delay in furnishing of the information occurred due to software of the online portal being dysfunctional, at the time when he had taken charge. The information was subsequently sourced by him from relevant custodians of information and furnished to appellant in the form of a CD. Since appellant denies receipt of the same, respondent volunteers to have another copy of the same sent and hand delivered to the appellant.
Decision:
In the light of the facts which transpired during the course of hearing, the Commission is of the opinion that though the technical glitch of a dysfunctional online portal, as pleaded by the respondent/PIO can be accepted as a cause of delay in furnishing of reply, the delay in disposal of First Appeal from 31.08.2017 to 18.05.2018 and that too by only providing inspection of records, is a manifest violation of the timeline mandated under the RTI Act. Clearly the FAA has failed to apply his mind in adjudicating the matter and even delayed its Page 2 of 7 summary disposal. Hence, the concerned FAA is cautioned to strictly adhere to the stipulated timeline in future.
Considering the averments of the respondent-PIO, it is hereby directed that complete copy of submissions dated 13.03.2020 submitted by the respondent before the Commission, to be delivered to the appellant within a week from today and respondent - Sh. Rajesh Sharma shall submit a compliance report before the Commission by 10.06.2020. It is made clear that non-compliance of the above directions shall attract penal action, as per law.
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/623980 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.01.2018seeking information on 7 points, inter alia:
1. Furnish following information in Excel/LST/any other electronic format of all TSRs:-
a) Registration No.
b) Date of Registration
c) Model-Bajaj, TVS, etc
d) Permit type-whether Delhi, NCR-HR-UP-RJ
e) Name of owner. Etc
2. Furnish photocopies of owners of all the TSRs with some reference to the TSR registration no.
3. Furnish certified copies of loan agreements and other annexures. Submitted along with Form 34 for all old and new TSRs which were financed since 01.01.2017 till date.
4. Furnish the following information in Excel or LST or any other format of all TSRs that were transferred since 01.01.2017 till date:-
a) Registration No.
b) Date of transfer
c) Name of transfer
d) Address of transferor.
5. A list of all dealers with addresses holding trade certificates as on 23.01.2018 for TSRs.
6. Copies of all orders, notifications etc. issuing or restoring any trade certificate since01.01.2017. etc. PIO/Dy. Commissioner (ARU), vide letter dated 07.03.2018 furnished the reply against queries points 1,2 & 4 as received from Assistant Programmer in CD and with respect to queries 3,5,6&7, appellant was informed that such information is not maintained separately and appellant may inspect the record and collect information on payment of requisite fee.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 24.05.2018. Appellant was unable to attend the hearing of the First Appeal and consequently, the FAA vide order dated 13.06.2018 held as follows "...it appears that the Appellant is not interested to get the information. Therefore, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is closed."
Page 3 of 7Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to maintain social distancing in the wake of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, hearing is conducted through audio conference. Appellant has stated information against query number 1 has been received, and he wishes to press his queries number 3,5,6 and 7 against which he has not received any satisfactory information.
Respondent has pointed out that he had sent letter dated 13.03.2020 to the appellant which was received back undelivered. This is probably because of a change of his address, as clarified by appellant during the hearing. Respondent claims to have sent a copy of the submissions dated 13.03.2020 to the Commission as well. The submissions were not received at the Commission till the hearing but during the course of the day, respondent sent the same on email to the DR of this Bench.
Decision:
Upon hearing the averments of the parties present for hearing, it is hereby directed that complete copy of submissions dated 13.03.2020, to be delivered to the appellant within a week from today and respondent - Sh. Rajesh Sharma shall submit a compliance report before the Commission within 10.06.2020. It is made clear that non-compliance of the above directions shall attract penal action, as per law.
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/635967 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 08.08.2018and sought certified copy of the log book from 01.05.2013 to 05.05.2013 of the car which was in use by the then Transport Commissioner.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.09.2018 which was not adjudicated. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to maintain social distancing in the wake of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, hearing is conducted through audio conference. Appellant has stated that he has not received any information nor reply from the respondent so far.
None participated in the hearing on behalf of the Respondent.
Decision:
Considering complete silence from the respondent in this case, the Registry is directed to send a Notice to the PIO- (Admin.)/HQ., Transport Department Page 4 of 7 (Government of NCT of Delhi), Administration Section, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi seeking explanation for his absence during hearing, despite service of hearing notice, thereby vitiating the proceeding of hearing. The PIO shall clarify in his explanation:
i) Reply if any given to the appellant so far alongwith copy thereof;
ii) In the event no response was furnished to the appellant, reasonable cause and explanation for the violation of the RTI Act;
iii) Furnish complete reply to the appellant by 15.06.2020, if the same has not been provided so far.
The PIO shall submit an explanation before the Commission by 20.06.2020, failing which appropriate penal action shall be initiated by the Registry of this Bench.
CIC/RECOS/A/2018/624749 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.01.2018seeking information on 2 points:
1. List of all active cooperative banks along with following information:-
a. Name of the bank b. Registration No. c. Year of registration d. Number of branches e. Full postal address along with pin code f. Name of the president/chairman along with contact mobile number or, in its absence, his landline phone. Etc.
2. Copies of the latest audited accounts/return of each bank.
PIO/Asst. Registrar (Banking) vide letter dated 28.02.2018 furnished a list of 17 Cooperative Banks and Societies alongwith names and mobile numbers of staff members and also informed the Appellant that other information should be available on the website of RCS office and the concerned Cooperative Banks and Societies.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 20.03.2018. FAA/DR decided the matter on merit vide order dated 30.05.2018 holding that there was no infirmity in the reply given by PIO(Banking) against query no. 1 and directed the PIO (Audit) to provide the required information against query no. 2 to the Appellant within two weeks of the issue of the order.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of the FAA order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The PIO/AR (Banking) has file submissions dated 05.03.2020 stating that though no direction was passed for PIO/AR(Banking) by the FAA, yet vide reply dated 04.03.2020 additional information has been furnished about the 17 Co- operative Banks, including registration number, postal address, name of President/Chairman, name of CEO/Vice Chairman and their telephone numbers and website of the concerned bank.Page 5 of 7
The PIO(Audit) has submitted a written statement dated 28.02.2020, stating that copies of latest audited accounts/returns of each bank can be inspected and photocopies of the documents required can be obtained from the office on any working day.
Decision:
Examination of the facts of the case reveal that while the PIO-AR-Banking has furnished all relevant information, the directions of the FAA, as issued vide order dated 30.05.2018 have not been complied by the PIO-AR/Audit -Sh. Tanuj Bhanot even after lapse of almost two years. The reply dated 28.02.2020 fails to furnish response against query number 2, as directed by the FAA.The PIO-AR- Banking pointed out that since the appellant had not specified a period for which he sought the information, the term"latest audited accounts/return of each bank" was left to interpreted. The appellant present for hearing clarified that he may be furnished information for the period 2018-2019.
Thus, the PIO-AR-Audit is hereby directed to provide information for the year 2018-19, free of cost at the new address of the appellant. PIO-AR, Banking -Sh. M G Sathya shall communicate this order to his colleague PIO-AR, Audit, Sh. Tanuj Bhanot, who is currently discharging assigned administrative duties in the wake of COVID.Sh. Bhanot must submit his compliance report, in this regard, before the Commission within four weeks of lifting of the lockdown, to avoid commencement of penal proceedings, as per law.
Before concluding the case at hand, the Commission strongly recommends that information related to audit reports of banks as sought by the appellant should ideally be published on the website by relevant public authorities on a regular basis, in terms of Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will not only lead to compliance of the law, but obviate the need to file RTI applications on these issues, thereby easing the burden on the concerned Public Authority.
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/642160 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 11.10.2018seeking information on 2 points:
1. Certified copy of the entire file concerning my complaint including the names and designations of personnel involved in taking action, file notings, photos, witnesses;
2. Details of any action taken on or after 28.09.2018 PIO/Exe. Engineer (Bldg-I), vide letter dated 11.12.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by the actual custodian of information, informing him that as per records, the property/flat no. 298, NarmadaApartments, Alaknanda, Delhi has been found booked on 23.08.2018 for unauthorised construction and department has also taken demolition action on 12.09.2018 by demolishing and cutting down 01 RCC panel at the terrace of the third floor. He was further informed that the temporary shed has also been demolished. Copies of the show cause notice and demolition order were enclosed with the reply. The respondent Page 6 of 7 added in their response that sealing file of the said property has also been initiated by the department on 01.11.2018.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.01.2019. FAA vide order dated 08.02.2019 directed the PIO to furnish the information including copy of the entire sealing file, including noting, mentioned by the PIO in his reply to query no. 2 to the Appellant within 15 days, as per the provisions of Section 7(6) of the Act.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied on non-receipt of the information as directed by the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to maintain social distancing in the wake of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, hearing is conducted through audio conference.
Appellant seeks to withdraw the matter, stating that the person regarding whom he sought the above information, is deceased.
Decision:
The appellant's request is accepted and the instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
The above mentioned appeals are disposed off with the respective directions, mentioned above.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस$यािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश 'ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 7 of 7