Central Information Commission
Hemu Gautam vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 10 October, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/606196
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/613362
Shri Hemu Gautam ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/606196
PIO/SDM (Yamuna Vihar),
North East Dist., NandNagri, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Delhi
Through: Sh. Devendra Kumar, SDM (YV)
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/613362
PIO/MLO (ARU), Transport
Dept., Burari, Delhi
Through: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, MLO, ARU/TU
Date of Hearing : 07.10.2019
Date of Decision 09.10.2019
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
606196 07.07.2017 Nil 17.08.2017 06.09.2017
613362 29.11.2017 Nil 12.01.2018 Nil
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/606196
Appellant filed RTI application dated 07.07.2017 seeking information regarding
action taken by SDM (Yamuna Vihar) on application ID no. 94/29/2017/1 of
Sh. Parvez Khan regarding generation and distribution of e-stamp papers up to
Rs. 500.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated
17.08.2017. FAA vide order dated 06.09.2017 directed SDM (Seelampur) to
ensure supply of information within 15 days from the date of receipt of RTI
application, under intimation to their office.
Page 1 of 4
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance with the FAA order, Appellant
approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
The Appellant introduces himself as the authorized representative of Sh. Parvez Khan. In the year 2017, Appellant had filed an online application in the Respondent office for the issuance of ACC license, in favour of Sh. Parvez Khan, required for generation and distribution of e-stamp paper upto Rs. 500/- along with the requisite documents. Appellant states that, on receipt of no reply, when they visited the office of the SDM/ Sh. Daniel Masih to inquire about their application thereof, they were asked to re-file the application thereof along with the hard copies of the supporting documents. Appellant complains that despite following the directions of the SDM, no response was received from the O/o SDM on their application thereof. Therefore, Appellant has filed the present RTI application.
Respondent has filed a submission dated 04.10.2019 which states that there is no record available in the Respondent office to show that Sh. Parvez Khan had visited the O/o of SDM (YV) for producing original documents/ verification of submitted documents.
Decision:
There appears to be contradiction in the submissions of both the parties. While the Appellant claims to have not been issued a license for generation and distribution of e-stamp paper upto Rs. 500/- despite filing the online application and following the set procedure, the Respondent /SDM (YV) in his submission dated 04.10.2019, in admitting the filing of the online application thereof by the Appellant, denies that the Appellant visited their office for filing the original documents.
The Appellant, however, submits that the Respondent/ Sh. Devendra Kumar, SDM(YV) has spoken to him before the hearing and has assured him that he will provide all reasonable assistance in resolution of his grievance. Be that as it may, the sequence of events indicates that there has been a violation of the RTI Act. Neither reply was provided to the Appellant in response to his RTI application nor the directions of the FAA were complied with by the Respondent for 2 years. However, given the fact that the Appellant is more interested in resolving his grievance rather than pursuing penal action against the Respondent, the Commission hereby warns current PIO / Sh. Devendra Kumar, SDM(YV) and the then PIO/Sh. Daniel Masih, who held charge of SDM (YV) when the RTI was filed and the hearing by the FAA was held, to scrupulously adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act, to avoid attracting penal action under the law.
The PIO / Sh. Devendra Kumar, SDM(YV) is further directed to submit an action taken report on the Appellant's RTI application before the Commission within 1 month from the date of issue of this order, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
The case stands disposed off accordingly, with the above observations and directions.
Page 2 of 4CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/613362 Appellant filed RTI application dated 29.11.2017 to seek information regarding action taken by MLO/ARU, Burari, Delhi on his application dated 06.11.2017 for removal of objections regarding issuance of LOI vide his earlier application no. DL1701T000014472 which was sent via speed post no. ED245338244IN, dated 07.11.2017 to MLO/ARU, Burari, Delhi-110085.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.01.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant complains that he has neither received any reply from the PIO in response to his RTI application nor was his First Appeal adjudicated. Appellant states that he has filed the present RTI application to inquire about the action taken on his letter dated 06.11.2017 wherein he has challenged the objections found in his application for the issuance of LOI regarding TSR by the Respondent public authority and requested for the removal of the same. The record of the Transport Department, sent enclosed along with the letter dated 06.11.2017, clearly indicates that vehicle number DL1RJ 2302, was registered in the name of Gopal S/o Ram Saroop and not the Appellant, as published by the Respondent in the list of objections for the issuance of LOI.
Submission dated 24.09.2019 has been received from MLO (ARU/TU)/Sh. Rajesh Kumar which indicates that on 15.06.2017 a public notice was issued by the Transport Department, GNCTD to inform the applicants that the list of all applicants as per the seniority of driving licensed of TSR was available online including the list of applicants who were rejected. Vide public notice dated 18.08.2017 applicants were informed to submit the documents and check the status of their applications online. And vide public notice dated 16.07.2019 applicants were informed about the last opportunity being provided to remove the objections in their applications. Appellant rejects the submission of the Respondent as being unnecessary and unrelated to the queries raised in his RTI application.
Decision:
Commission observes that the present case relates primarily to the grievance of the Appellant. Though Commission is not a grievance redressal forum, however, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Commission deems it fit to direct the PIO/ Sh. Rajesh Kumar, MLO (ARU/TU) Transport Department, Burari. Delhi-110084:
(i). To submit a satisfactory and detailed explanation for a) not providing information to the Appellant, without any reasonable cause, b) causing an obstruction in the flow of information and c) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. This explanation must reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
(ii). To provide a revised reply to the Appellant against each of the queries raised in the RTI application. The Commission grants opportunity to PIO Page 3 of 4 to obtain the necessary information from the relevant custodians of information thereof and provide the same to the Appellant within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The case stands disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4