Central Information Commission
Mrrakesh Agarwal vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 April, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
(1) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000097SA
(2) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000098SA
(3) File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000099SA
(4) File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000100SA
(5) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000123SA
(6) File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000124SA
(7) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000590SA
(8) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000591SA
(9) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000660SA
(10) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001893SA
(11) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001894SA
(12) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001895SA
(13) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001896SA
(14) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001897SA
(15) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001900SA
(16) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001904SA
(17) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001905SA
(18) File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/001853SA
(19) File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002420SA
(20) File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002428SA
(21) File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001664SA
(22) File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001665SA
1
(23) File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001666SA
(24) File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001667SA
(25) File No.CIC/DS/C/2013/000582SA
(Mr. Rakesh Agrawal Vs. Transport Deptt , Delhi)
Appellant : Mr.Rakesh Agrawal
Respondent : Transport Deptt. Delhi
Date of hearing : 15042014
Date of decision : 23042014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections : Sections 3, 19(3) of the
RTI Act
Result : Appeal allowed /disposed of
FACTS
The above listed 25 RTI appeals including 5 complaints (which are converted as appeals at the request of the appellant) filed by Mr. Rakesh Agrawal against the Public Authority [Transport Deptt., GNCTD, Delhi] are combined and heard today.
2. The appellant Mr. Rakesh Agrawal is present along with Mr. Jeevan and Mr. Veeresh Malik. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Sanjay Ailawadi, MLO(Ops), Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Mr. Ajay Kumar Samal, Mr. Gurmit Singh, PIO, Mr. Vikas Jain, PIO, Mr. Cleetus K.M., AO/PIO, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, MLO(HO) and Mr. Manish Puri, Inspector, Transport Deptt., GNCTD, Delhi.
3. The appellant has submitted the following 5 appeals 2
(i)(4) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000100SA
(ii)(12) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001895SA
(iii)(13) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001896SA
(iv)(16) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001904SA
(v)(25) File No.CIC/DS/C/2013/000582SA
4. The appellant sought information regarding (i) the details of vehicles plying in Delhi without any registration number plate but onlywith State Emblem, (ii) Copy of Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 as amended up to date in Microsoft word form or in any other editable format (iii) a list of all the vehicles which have been in use by the Respondent authority since 112012 along with copies of registration certificates and pollution certificates (iv) copies of Form 20 in respect of all vehicles registered since 152007 to check whether the respondent authority is complying with the law in public interest (v) application of RTI Act to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) relating to appointment of PIO/APIO and FAA in the said Tribunal. There is no FAA order in the above cases except in one case at (i) above, regarding nonregistration of vehicles, which has not been complied completely by the PIO, as alleged by the appellant.
5. The respondents have submitted that (i) under section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is compulsory for all the vehicles to get the registration number and all the car dealers in Delhi are complying with this mandate and they do not have any data regarding the car dealers operating outside the jurisdiction of Delhi, as it is for the Enforcement Agency/Delhi Traffic Police to seize the vehicles plying without any registration number (ii) copy of DMV Rules in Microsoft word form is not available as PDF form of rules which reflected scanning of printed papers, which cannot be converted into MS Word form, and therefore they can supply 365 pages hard copy on payment of Rs.730/ (iii) the list of all vehicles in use by the respondent authority since 112012 has been supplied to the appellant, who has acknowledged the same, (iv) it is very difficult to furnish form 20 of all 3 the vehicles since 152007 and as agreed by the appellant the respondent is prepared to furnish for any one week chosen by the appellant and (v) as far as the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is concerned, they are coordinating through the respondent authority for supplying any information, without they themselves having any PIO/APIO, etc.
6. Having heard the above submissions of both the parties, the Commission directs the respondent authority (i) to enquire into the matter of vehicles plying without registration number plate, find the persons responsible for this and initiate action against them (ii) supply the copy of the DMV Rules to the appellant after collecting the due amount (iii) supply information to the appellant regarding the vehicles used by the respondent authority, if the information already supplied is not enough (iv) supply the information to the appellant regarding Form 20 for a period of one week as agreed by both the parties and (v) directs the Head of the Department of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to explain why they did not establish the mechanism of furnishing information directly to the RTI applicants by appointing PIO/FAA under the RTI Act, 2005 within one month from the date of receipt of this order and disposes of the appeals referred in para 3 above, accordingly.
7. In the following 12 appeals the appellant has submitted as under:
(i)(10) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001893SA
(ii)(11) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001894SA
(iii)(14) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001897SA
(iv)(15) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001900SA
(v)(17) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001905SA
(vi)(18) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001853SA
(vii)(19) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/002420SA
(viii)(20) File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/002428SA
(ix)(21) File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001664SA 4
(x)(22) File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001665SA
(xi)(23) File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001666SA
(xii)(24) File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001667SA
8. The appellant sought information regarding (i) copies of complaints dt.692011/88 2011 filed by Mr. Vijay Dahiya and dt. 2022012 filed by himself and action taken thereon.
(ii) information on penalty payable if an applicant fails to register the vehicles within the prescribed time, in a particular format designed by the appellant (iii) a copy of the document signed by a senior officerof the respondent authority laying down the list of documents required for registering new auto and obtaining permit, as the appellant feels that some of the documents in the list are unnecessary and causing harassment to the applicants (iv) reasons for violation of Rule 55 of DMV Rules 1993 in respect of issue of permits to autorikshaws (v) a copy of the proof of having served the Supreme Court SLP(Civil) No.2287071/2011 (vi) a list of applicants who have applied for permit for autorikshaw under corporate/societies scheme (vii) a list of all autorikshaws categorywise registered since 192012 (viii) a list of senior officers in the respondent office starting from Inspector and upward and furnish a copy of FIR on the complaint of Mr. Vivek Garg regarding vehicle inspection unit (ix) the implementation of the High Security Registration Plates Project (HSRP Project), specifically seeking the copies of Bid document, names and addresses of bidders, financial offers, concession agreements and the names of the attendees who attended the prebid meetings/conference, etc. (x) implementation of HSRP Project, relating to the documentary evidence in the form of receipts of all HSRP collected by vehicles owners, list of all snap locks, copies of all monthly price statements submitted by the concessionaire, etc.including furnishing of telephone numbers of the vehicles owners who may call for any query with regard to the appellant's case (xi) implementation of HSRP Project in the NCT of Delhi on BOO basis asking for copies of all reviews and comments given by the authority to the concessionaire, details of implementation report, approvals for all the changes copies of permits, copies of project agreements, etc. (xii) 5 action taken on the complaint dt. 1112012 against Rosemerta HSRP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. etc. There is no FAA order in all the 12 appeals mentioned herein. The appellant further requested to issue show cause notice to SPIO/PIO for not supplying the complete information and also for delaying the same beyond the prescribed time limit.
9. The respondent/PIO has made the same submissions as per his replies given to the appellant on his various RTI applications dealt with in the files mentioned in para 7 above and made no new submissions to convince the Commission for not furnishing the complete information and delaying the same beyond the prescribed time limit.
10. After hearing the appeals listed in para 7 above, the Commission directs the respondent SPIO and the concerned PIO to furnish the required information to the appellant separately for all the cases listed in para 7 within one month from the date of receipt of this order and show cause why penalty cannot be imposed on SPIO and on the concerned PIO for not supplying the complete information desired by the appellant within the prescribed time limit. Their explanation separately for each case should reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order. The Commission orders accordingly in the 12 cases listed in para 7 above.
11. The appellant has submitted as under in the following 8 appeals:
(i)(1)File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000097SA
(ii)(2)File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000098SA
(iii)(3)File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000099SA
(iv)(5)File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000123SA
(v)(6)File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000124SA
(vi)(7)File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000590SA
(vii)((8)File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000591SA
(viii)(9)File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000660SA 6
12. The appellant sought information regarding (i) the notifications of fare for radio taxis, names and addresses of radio taxi operators, papers relating to levying of penalties etc.
(ii) the special registration numbers allotted to VIPs and the legal provision under which such a special treatment was given (iii) the issue of certificates of fitness for the taxis date wise for the years 20092012 and the number of inspectors deployed datewise for purposes of issuing certificates for these years (iv) number of licences, registration certificates, permits and badges issued by the respondent authority since 142004 (v) inspection of all the correspondence since 1542008 from one Mr. BB Sharan, the self proclaimed president of Nyayabhoomi (vi) permits issued and autorikshaws registered in pursuance of public notice dt. 882012 in a particular format designed by the appellant on a CD in excel format, along with photos of permit holders in a separate folder (vii) GPS/GPRS integrated fare meter installed in new autorickshaws, etc. including all the data in electronic format and (viii) list of companies which have been licensed to operate radio taxis, etc. along with file notings, etc. FAA has directed PIO to provide information within 15 days to the appellant in all the above cases except in one case at (vii) above, in which FAA has upheld PIO's reply and dismissed the appellant's appeal. SPIO/the concerned PIO have not complied with the FAA orders completely within the prescribed time limit. The appellant, therefore, requested for issuing show cause notice to the SPIO/the concerned PIO for not complying with the FAA order within the prescribed time limit.
13. The respondent/PIO submitted the same points/issues which he mentioned in his replies to the various RTI applications dealt with in the files mentioned in para 11 above and made no new submissions for not complying with the FAA orders within the prescribed time limit.
7
14. After hearing the appeals listed in para 11 above, the Commission directs the respondent SPIO and the concerned PIO to furnish the required information to the appellant separately for all the cases listed in para 7 within one month from the date of receipt of this order and show cause why penalty cannot be imposed on SPIO and on the concerned PIO for not complying with the FAA order and for not furnishing the complete information to the appellant within the prescribed time limit. Their explanation separately for each case should reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order. The Commission orders accordingly in the 8 cases listed in para 11 above.
15. The Commission while hearing the 25 Second Appeals filed by Mr. Rakesh Agrawal found that every RTI application is a public interest application aimed at developing good governance systems in road transport offices. The Commission also found lot of research behind RTI applications. From the discussions, the Commission found that the appellants have studied the system and the Motor Vehicles Act in depth and were seeking very comprehensive reformation.
16. The appellant raised very important public interest/safety issues as follows:
(a) Slackness in High Security Name Plate project, which gives scope for any unauthorised person to duplicate High Security Number Plates, defeating the purpose totally. If anybody can make a HS number plate, the security will be under serious threat. If any crime occurred in moving transport vehicle, it may not be possible for investigating officers to reach the owner of the vehicle etc. (There are several sexual crimes reportedly occurring in moving vehicles). The care to be taken in preventing 8 duplication of currency notes shall be taken in preventing duplication of high security number plates. Slackness should be probed into and the concerned authorities and contractors should be penalised, if found guilty.
(b) Malfunctioning of GPS/GPRS/systems. (c) Regularising system of giving permits to genuine autorikshaw operators, radio taxies, etc. (d) Strict verification of photos of licensees and their names, to avoid one name with different photos. Appellants demonstrated how more than four photos were
attached with the same name, age, address and father's name for licencees to operate vehicles/commercial licences, etc.
(e) Whether special registration numbers to VVIPs are legally provided.
(f) Website, not updated, outdated, not reachable, not downloadable etc.
(g) Fullfledged, dedicated officers to deal with RTI applications, with necessary manpower, resources and infrastructure, should be appointed.
(h) Compliance with Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act, regarding suo moto disclosure of information about organisation, permits/licences, commercial licence holders and other details of public services available. 9
17. It appears that the PIOs of different branches of the Transport Department are finding it difficult to understand which division has to answer certain areas of RTI applications. There appears lot of confusion because of which there is a delay in delivering the information . Almost all the information will fall under the category of Section 2(f) [definition] of the RTI Act which is supposed to be disclosed and no information can be restricted under any of the exemptions listed under Section 8 of the Act.
18. It also appears that the Respondent authority does not allocate enough manpower resources and time to implement RTI Act. The Commission was told that one senior officer is designated as SPIO and others as PIOs. As per the practice in vogue, it appears that the work of PIOs from different branches is not being coordinated by any authority. Most of the second appeals are arising because of such confusion causing delay.
19. The Commission directs the Respondent authority to designate a senior officer as CPIO, the nomenclature prescribed by RTI Act with the responsibility of coordinating the work of PIOs, collate the information obtained from different divisions and overseeing whether different divisions are furnishing the information within time. The CPIO should also be made responsible to give comprehensive information as per RTI Act with, of course, making every officer responsible as deemed PIO relating to information under his control. The Commission also notices that most of the information sought under the 25 second appeals is supposed to be voluntarily disclosed(suo moto) by the Respondent authority under section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, which was not being done. Hence, the Commission directs the 10 respondent authority to follow the guidelines of DOPT for implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act.
[ website: cic.gov/guidelines on proactive.pdf]
20. The Commission directs the respondent authority to develop the required systems and designate responsible officer as CPIO and PIOs in different branches with specific entrustment of duties to each officer and comply with the requirements of section 4 read with guidelines, within 3 months and report the compliance of this order to the Commission. The Commission also directs the respondent authority to update and reform the website as the appellants in these appeals find that it is almost impossible to gain access or search the information from the website.
21. A Copy of this Order is also sent to (1) Office of Hon'ble Lt. Governor (2) Chief Secretary to Govt. of NCT of Delhi and (3) Secretary(Transport)/Commissioner(Transport) , GNCTD for compliance of Para 19 and 20.
22. The Commission orders accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy 11 (Ashwani K. Sharma) Designated Officeer Address of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI Govt. of NCT of Delhi Transport Department O/o Dy.Commissioner (Transport) AR & Taxi Unit, Burari Delhi110084
2. Sh.Rakesh Agrawal C/o Nyaya Bhoomi, B-9, Vikram Nagar Feroze Shah Kotla New Delhi-110002.
COPY FORWARDED TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO SERVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON THE SPIO AND THE CONCERNED PIO AS PER PARAS 10 AND 14 OF THIS ORDER:-
3. The Additional Commissioner(RTI appeals) Transport Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi 5/9 Underhill Road Delhi110054 12 COPY ALSO FORWARDED TO THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS PER PARA 6(v) OF THIS ORDER:-
4. Mr. S.P.Nanwani,Reader(DST) Office of Delhi School Tribunhal & The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Old Patrachar Vidyalaya Complex Lucknow Road,Timarpur Delhi110064 COPY ALSO FORWARDED TO THE FOLLOWING DIGNITARIES W.R.T. PARA 21 OF THE ABOVE ORDER FOR COMPLIANCE OF PARAS 19 & 20:
5. Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Lt. Governor Lt. Governor Officer Raj Niwas Delhi110054
6. Chief Secretary to Govt. Of NCT Delhi Delhi Secretariat Govt. Of NCT of Delhi IP Estate New Delhi110002
7. Secretary(Transport)/ Commissioner(Transport) Govt. Of NCT of Delhi Delhi Secretariat IP Estate 13 New Delhi110002 14