Central Information Commission
Ramesh Chand Jain vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 30 December, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DTCOR/A/2018/120253
CIC/DTCOR/A/2018/120255
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/120256
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/120257
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/163836
CIC/DTCOR/C/2019/143389
Shri Ramesh Chand Jain ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
1. PIO/O/o. Dy. Chief General Manager-HQ,
Delhi Manager-HQ, Delhi Transport Corporation
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. PIO/O/o. the Dy. Chief General Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
3. PIO/Dy. Chief General Manager-(Tr.)/HQ,
Delhi Transport Corporation (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Sh. Inder Pal Singh
Sh. Sanjay Kumar
4. PIO/ Sub-Registrar-IV-B-(Vivek Vihar),
O/o. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(VV),
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Date of Hearing : 17.12.2019
Date of Decision : 30.12.2019
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
120253 16.11.2017 -- 19.01.2018 19.02.2018
143389 04.07.2019 -- 16.08.2019 --
120255 21.08.2017 19.09.2017 27.10.2017 28.12.2017
120256 27.10.2017 21.11.2017 13.12.2017 22.12.2017
163836 06.04.2018 07.05.2018 19.06.2017 24.04.2018
120257 03.11.2017 28.11.2017 13.12.2017 22.12.2017
CIC/DTCOR/A/2018/120253
Appellant filed RTI application dated 16.11.2017 seeking information on five
points:-
1. Mention the post to which Smt. Aradhana, Dy. CGM was initially appointed in
Delhi Transport Corporation and the posts she has held so far.
Page 1 of 6
2. What is the present salary of Smt. Aradhana? What are the other sources of
income and total income earned by Smt. Aradhana from them?
3. Provide details of movable and immovable properties acquired by Smt.
Aradhana while in Govt. service. Provide their sources.
4. Provide details of complaints of corruption, misappropriation and misuse of
power while in Govt. Service and action taken on them.
5. What is her educational qualification and where has she obtained her
Doctorate Degree from?
Having not received any response from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal
dated 19.01.2018.
FAA vide order dated 19.02.2018 directed PIO(HQ) to provide information
only with regard to point no. 1, and for point no. 2, to the extent of providing
pay scale/pay band and educational qualifications as per record for point
no. 5.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance with the FAO, Appellant
approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts arising during the course of hearing:
A written submission has been received from the PIO/Dy. CGM (Tr.)/H.Qrs. vide letter dated 10.12.2019 which contains reply dated 16.02.2018, sent in response to the RTI application and reply dated 04.12.2019, sent in compliance with the FAO.
Both the parties are present for the hearing. Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal. Appellant is aggrieved over non-receipt of any information till date.
Respondent submits that reply in compliance with the FAO has already been provided to him vide letter dated 04.12.2019. During the hearing, Respondent hands over a copy of the reply thereof to the Appellant.
Decision:
Commission notes that reply in compliance with the FAO was provided to the Appellant after a period of almost 2 years. While the reply thereof is found to be adequate, however, the delay caused reflects poorly on the state of affairs in the Respondent public authority. A strict warning is hereby, issued to the Respondent PIOs to refrain from engaging in conduct that is in violation of the RTI Act. In future, such violation of the RTI Act shall result in penal action. No further adjudication is required.
The appeal stands disposed off as such.
CIC/DTCOR/C/2019/143389 Complainant filed RTI application dated 04.07.2019 seeking information on two points:-
1. Provide action taken report on application dated 29.04.2016 regarding enquiry about fake M.Com degree of Shri Raj Kumar Singh, Dy. CGM.
2. If no action has so far been taken on the above said application, provide the name and designation of the officers for such in-action.
Having not received any response from the PIO, Complainant filed First Appeal dated 16.08.2019. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information, Complainant filed a complaint before the Commission.
Page 2 of 6Facts arising during the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Complainant is aggrieved over non receipt of any information from the Respondent. Complainant alleges that the degree of Sh. Raj Kumar Singh, Dy. CGM is fake. Therefore information was required to establish the same. A written submission has been received from the Respondent/PIO, H.Qrs./ Sh. R.B.L. Shrivastava, Dy. CGM (Tr.), vide letter dated 10.12.2019. While relying on the submission dated 10.12.2019, Respondent submits that a reply was sent to the Complainant on 04.09.2019 informing that after various correspondence with the Dy. Registrar, University of Rajasthan, it has been found, after verification, that the Mark sheets/degrees/certificates of Sh. Raj Kumar Singh, Dy. CGM were correct.
Decision:
In view of the findings of this case, Commission notes that adequate information has been provided to the Complainant. What remains now is the grievance of the Complainant. Since Commission is not a grievance redressal forum, the Complainant is advised to approach the appropriate forum for the same.
The Complaint is hereby closed.
CIC/DTCOR/A/2018/120255 Appellant filed RTI application dated 21.08.2017 seeking information on four points:-
1. Provide the rules under which pension is being provided to Mahavir Singh, Narender Kishore and M.C. Thandelwal who availed VRS in 1992.
2. Provide the names and designation of the officers of DTC Pension trust who are involved in providing pension to the above said employees.
3. What action would be taken by DTC against the wrong decision taken by the DTC Pension Trust?
4. Whether DTC considers the above decision to be correct? If yes, provide its basis.
PIO vide letter dated 19.09.2017 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 27.10.2017. FAA vide order dated 28.12.2017 upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts arising during the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
A written submission has been received from the PIODy. CGM (Tr.)/H.Qrs. vide letter dated 10.12.2019 whereby he has submitted a copy of reply dated 19.09.2017 (with enclosures) and copy of FAO, upholding the reply thereof.
Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal.
Respondent submits that reply in response to the RTI application and in compliance with the FAO has already been provided to the Appellant.
Page 3 of 6Decision:
Commission is of the view that the information provided in response to the RTI application is adequate. While upholding the order of the FAA, Commission opines that no further adjudication is required in this case.
Therefore, the appeal stands disposed off as such.
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/120256 Appellant filed RTI application dated 27.10.2017 seeking information only one point:-
1. Provide a copy of pages 17 to 175 of Book No.4, Vol. 69 bearing Reg. No. 569 whereby Sh. Jawaharlal Jain executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Poonam Jain and Sh. Prateek Jain on 2.06.2016 in the O/o. Sub registrar, IV-B, Vivek Vihar, Delhi
2. .the General Power of Attorney dated 02.06.2016, Registration No. 569 of Sub Registrar, IV-B, Vivek Vihar, Delhi.
PIO/Sub-Registrar (Vivek Vihar) vide letter dated 21.11.2017 denied information under Section 57(3) of Indian Registration Act, 1908. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 13.12.2017. FAA vide order dated 22.12.2017 upheld the reply of PIO and disposed off his first appeal.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/163836 Appellant filed RTI application dated 06.04.2018 seeking information on three points:-
1. Provide reasons for not providing certified copies as per application dated 16.11.2017 even after depositing requisite fees of Rs. 60/-.
2. Provide copy of the rules under which the certified copies as mentioned above were denied.
3. Provide the name and designation of the officer and copy of the order under which the certified copies as mentioned above were denied.
PIO vide letter dated 07.05.2018 informed the Appellant to deposit fees of Rs. 10/- and avail the information.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 19.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 24.07.2018 stated as under as under:-
"PIO is directed to ask third party if he want his documents to be provided, them information can be provided as per consent of third party, as per rules".
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts arising during the course of hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Respondent despite service in advance of notice for the hearing.Page 4 of 6
Appellant is present for the hearing. Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal.
Decision:
It is noted that in both the above RTI applications( in CIC file no. 120256 and 163836) the Appellant has sought Copy of pages no. 17 to 175, pertaining to a Property, bearing registration no. 569, in Book - IV, volume no. 69. Therefore the cases are clubbed together for their prompt disposal. The PIOs, in response to both the RTI applications has denied information under Section 57 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. While in file no. 120256, the FAA has upheld the reply of the PIO, the FAA in file no. 163836, had directed the PIO to seek third party consent for disclosing their documents.
Since neither PIO nor his representative is present today to assist the Commission in adjudication of this appeal, the Commission hereby directs the PIO, to submit a detailed and satisfactory explanation for a) not bothering to be present during the hearing thereby vitiating the hearing, b) not complying with the FAO dated 24.07.2018 in file no. 163836 thereby causing obstruction in the flow of information and c) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. This explanation must reach the Commission within 4 weeks, with a copy marked to the Appellant, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law. In RTI application bearing CIC file no. 163836, the PIO is further directed to refund the amount of Rs. 60/-, as deposited by the Appellant (slip no. 8712) for obtaining copy of pages no. 17 to 175 thereof.
The appeal stands disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/120257 Appellant filed RTI application dated 03.11.2017 seeking information on five points:-
1. Mention the post to which Shri M. P. Bhaskar Sub- Registrar (Vivek Vihar)was initially appointed in and the posts he has held so far.
2. What is the present salary of M. P. Bhaskar ? What are the other sources of income and total income earned by Shri M. P. Bhaskar from them?
3. Provide details of movable and immovable properties acquired by Shri M. P. Bhaskar while in Govt. service. Provide their sources.
4. Provide details of complaints of corruption, misappropriation and misuse of power while in Govt. Service and action taken on them.
5. What is her educational qualification of Shri Bhaskar?
PIO vide letter dated 28.11.2017 provided information on points no. 1, 2, 4 & 5 and denied information on point no. 3 under Section 8(J) of RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 13.12.2017. FAA vide order dated 22.12.2017 stated as follows:-
"It is found that RTI should have been transferred to concerned PIO for providing information and it is ordered accordingly to transfer the application to concerned PIO within 5 days".
In compliance with FAO, a reply PIO vide letter dated 02.02.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Page 5 of 6Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts arising during the course of hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Respondent despite service in advance of notice for the hearing.
Appellant is present for the hearing. Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal.
Decision:
Perusal of the available records indicate that adequate information in response to the RTI application and in compliance with the FAO has been provided to the Appellant. However, Commission takes adverse note of the absence of the PIO despite service of notice for the hearing. Therefore, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to provide a satisfactory explanation with cogent reasons for a) not bothering to be present during the hearing thereby vitiating the hearing and b) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. This explanation must reach the Commission within 4 weeks, with a copy marked to the Appellant, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above 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 6 of 6