Central Information Commission
Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari vs Transport Department, Govt. Of Nct Of ... on 17 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000254/7164
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000254
Appellant : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari,
J - 281/84 A, Gali No. 8,
Kartar Nagar,3 1/2 Pusta
Delhi - 110053.
Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Ailawadi
Public Information Officer & Motor Licensing Officer Transport Department (Secretariat Branch) Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 5/9 Under Hill Road, Delhi-110054 RTI application filed on : 03/11/2009 PIO replied : 03/12/2009 First Appeal filed on : 16/12/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 25/01/2009 Second Appeal Received on : 29/01/2010 Notice of Hearing Sent on : 17/02/2010 Hearing Held on : 17/03/2010 Sl. Information Sought PIO's reply
1. Appellant sought information regarding method of A vehicle is separated part-by-part scrapping of vehicles. Whether the vehicle is after separating CNG cylinder valve. scrapped as whole or by part. The vehicle is sold on the basis of scrap finally.
2. How much amount is fixed, as per provision of the Information may not be provided due to department, for providing to the owner of the file which is not in proper place. vehicle?
3. Whether the department had given permission for decreasing amount for vehicle two times? Provide copy of the same order.
PIO's Reply:
The Appellant was furnished information vide letter dt.03/12/2009 Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply. Information was not provided by the PIO stating that file was not in proper place.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The PIO was directed to provide information in respect of point no. 2 & 3 within 10 days. Grounds for Second Appeal:
Desired document was not provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari;
Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Ailawadi, Public Information Officer & Motor Licensing Officer;
The Appellant has sought information about how the transport department scraps auto rickshaws. Discussions with the Respondent and the Appellant reveal a very intriguing state of affairs. All auto rickshaws when required to be scrapped have to go to the Scrapping Unit at Suraj Mal Vihar. The Transport Department has given a monopoly to a single contractor who gives some money to the owner of the auto rickshaw and issues a scrapping certificate based on which a new auto rickshaw can be purchased by the owner. The Respondent states that this contract with a particular contractor has been in place since 2007 and the file listing the terms and conditions as also the period for which the contract is valid has been stolen/lost. Consequent to an earlier order of the Commission the Respondent is going to file a police complaint giving the names of the officers who last handled this file.
It appears from the statements of the Respondent and the Appellant that the place of 1000Sq. meters has been provided by the Department with free electricity and water supply. A monopoly has been given to the Contractor and in 2007 he was paying Rs.7000/- and is now paying Rs.5000/- for auto rickshaw owner. There is no record of the amount which the contractor is to pay the auto rickshaw owner and this entire transaction is continuing based on terms and condition that the contactor wishes. The Appellant alleges that earlier the old auto rickshaws were being actually scrapped in a machine in 1998-99 and presently the parts are being dismantled and sold. The Respondent and the Appellant both admit that about 19000 auto rickshaws have been scrapped under this monopoly of rights given to the Contractor since 2007. Given this state of affairs the Respondent admits that there is no time frame for the conclusion of this monopoly contract given to the contractor and it might get converted to a perpetual ownership and contract of the land and the right. The Commission recommends to the public authority to find some way of reconstructing this contract.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to inform the Commission and the Appellant if any specific action and time line is fixed for reconstructing this file and agreement. The PIO is directed to send a report on this to the Commission and the Appellant before 10 May 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 17 March 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj