Central Information Commission
Rajwant Singh vs Transport Department Delhi on 11 February, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/144628
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/144630
Shri Rajwant Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/MLO (ARU), Transport Dept. ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Burari, Delhi
Through: Shri Rajesh Kumar, MLO
Date of Hearing : 07.02.2020
Date of Decision : 11.02.2020
lnformation Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on
144628 26.02.2018 23.03.2018 04.04.2018 02.05.2018 13.07.2018
144630 28.02.2018 05.04.2018 04.04.2018 02.05.2018 13.07.2018
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/144628
Information soughtand background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 26.02.2018 seeking information on 07 points;
1. Provide the reasons of change of Economy Taxi Scheme 2010 to City Taxi Scheme 2015.
2. How many pages does the main file relating to City Taxi Scheme 2015 contain?
3. Provide the gazette issue date, gazettepart, serial number/issue number and gazette file number relating to City Taxi Scheme.
4. Provide the address and contact details of State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Etc PIO/MLO (ARU), vide letter dated 23.03.2018 stated on points number 1-6 that the information is not maintained separately and then the Appellant could inspect the record on any working day. A reply to point number 7 was furnished.Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 04.04.2018. FAA vide order dated 02.05.2018 directed the PIO/MLO to provide complete information to the Appellant within 15 days.
In compliance of the FAA order, PIO/MLO (ARU), vide letter dated 15.05.2018 informed the Appellant that the information is not maintained separately, he may inspect the official record on any working day to get the information. He may also take the photocopies of record.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Submission dated 01.02.2020 has been received from PIO/MLO (ARU), Burari.
Appellant and Respondent were present in the hearing. Appellant stated that he had sought the information regarding the scheme of radio taxi. He submitted that no information was provided to him by the Respondent. He further added that he inspected the file but could not find where the information was kept in the file. Therefore, he requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide the information sought by him. The Appellant further submits that he went from pillar to post to find out details about the scheme of Radio Taxi but was not able to get a proper response from any quarter.
Respondent submitted before the Commission that replies on the information sought were sent to the Appellant on 23.03.2018 and 15.05.2018 wherein it was informed that the information on various matters are not maintained separately. He further submits that the Appellant was advised to inspect the record on any working day to get the information but he never approached the department for inspection records and to collect the information.
Decision:
On perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to supply a revised reply about the Economy Radio Taxi Scheme 2010 and City Taxi Scheme 2015 within three weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report to be submitted before the Commission, by 15.03.2020.
The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/144630 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 28.02.2018 seeking information on 05 points;Page 2 of 3
1. Provide the name, address and number of companies like OLA and UBER who have obtained permission from the Taxi Unit till 28.02.2018.
2. Provide the number of pages of the main file relating to TSR permit and provide a copy of the same.
3. Provide information regarding Zero Fitness relating to taxies. Etc PIO/MLO (ARU), vide letter dated 05.04.2018 stated on points number 1-5 that the information is not maintained separately. Appellant could inspect the record on any working day Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 04.04.2018. FAA vide order dated 02.05.2018 directed the PIO/MLO to provide complete information to the Appellant within 15 days.
In compliance of the FAA order, PIO/MLO (ARU), vide letter dated 15.05.2018 informed the Appellant that the information is not maintained separately and he could inspect the official record on any working day to get the information. He may also take the photocopies of the record.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present during hearing and submit their respective positions based on the aforementioned facts. The Respondent submits that the Appellant was advised to inspect the record on any working day to get the information but he never approached the department for inspection of records and to collect the information.
Decision On perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Appellant, under the circumstances, is at liberty to approach the Respondent to inspect the available records/file in accordance with the PIO's reply thereof, at a mutually convenient date and time.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above observations and directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 3 of 3