Central Information Commission
Shri S. S. Singh vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police on 9 January, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00839 dated 19.8.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri S. S. Singh
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police
Facts:
By an application of 5.5.07 Shri S.S.Singh of Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi applied to the PIO DCP (Traffic) South, seeking the following information:
"Kindly arrange to provide me with the following information under the RTI Act:
(A) Kindly arrange to provide name, address, licence No., badge No. etc. for the drivers of the following autos, alongwith names and addresses of the owners:
1) DL-1R-D-3672
2) DL-1R-H-0982
3) DL-1R-F-9670 (B) What action has been taken against the culprit drivers of these autos, on the basis of complaint made by me? Please provide complete details within 30 days. If no action has been taken against them, then reasons for not taking action may kindly be provided.
(C) If any challans have been made in respect of these autos, I may kindly be provided information in writing.
These criminal drivers have :
Refused to take me to the desired destination.
Secondly they refused to go by meter and charged higher fares. Thirdly, they misbehaved with me and fought with me. I may, therefore, be informed as to how much fine has been imposed on these autos. Rs. 600/- is minimum fine for one offence. It is also requested that a photo copy of the challans made in this respect, may kindly be provided to me."
To this he received a response dated 7.6.07 stating that the application was received on 10.5.07 and providing the following information:1
"The information sought by you is as under:
1)A) Auto No. DL-1RD-3672 : This auto was challaned vide challan No. 12585065 u/s 11.9/1.77 of M.V. Act B) DL-1RH-0982 : This auto was challaned vide challan No. 12585067 u/s 11.9/1.77 of M.V. Act C) DL-1RF-9670 : This auto was challaned vide challan No. 12585066 u/s 11.9/1.77 of M.V. Act Names of all the three auto owners have been traced which are furnished in the attached sheet and information is being collected in respect of Licence Nos. and Badge Nos. of Drivers, which information will be provided to you in due course.
2) The above autos have been challaned.
3) -do- "
In the meantime, however, appellant had already moved his first appeal on 6.6.07, on the lapse of 30 days since the submission of his application, pleading that he had not received a response to the application under RTI Act. The Appellate Authority Shri M. S. Upadhye, Addl. Commissioner of Traffic in his order of 7.7.07 has addressed the issue raised by appellant in his first appeal i.e. that, "He has not received the requisite information within 30 days and hence this appeal". He then observed that "the information related to Traffic Police has been supplied to the appellant vide letter No. 2729/Complt. Br. Traffic. Dated 7.6.07"
Consequently, he has dismissed the appeal on the following grounds :
"As the pointwise reply related to Traffic Police has been furnished to the appellant vide letter No. referred to above, within stipulated time, I do not find any reason to issue any fresh direction to the PIO Traffic in this regard and hence the appeal is disallowed."
The appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
"Supplying incomplete information under RTI Act 2005. Not providing certified copies demanded under these rules. Contradictory replies given by PIO & Appellate Authority etc."
The appeal was heard on 9.1.'09. The following are present:
Appellant Shri SS Singh Respondents Shri Muktesh Chander Addl CP Traffic 2 Shri Prabhakaran, DCP Traffic Shri VK Joshi, Inspector Shri Muktesh Chander, Addl. CP (Traffic) submitted that although appellant Shri Singh had not moved a first appeal against the information supplied by DCP Traffic in his letter of 7.6.07, he has, on the basis of the notice of hearing of the second appeal issued by this commission, prepared the answers which appellant Shri Singh had sought and sent these to appellant which appellant has refused to receive.
Appellant on the other hand has argued that he has submitted his application of 5.5.07 by courier which does not take more than two days to delivber. Therefore, he suspected malafide and wished to be convinced that the application was indeed received by PIO on 10.5.07. He acknowledged, however, that he has received the response on 11.6.07 through a constable who delivered this to him in person.
Respondent Shri Prabhakar presented a copy of the original application with the stamp receipt clearly indicating that it was received on 10.5.07 upon which Shri Singh has protested that in that case he has been misinformed by the Police Control Room against telephone No. 100 of the address of the DCP (Traffic) South. To test the responses of PCR, therefore, Shri Muktesh Chander Addl. CP called No. 100 before us to enquire about the address of the DCP Traffic / South identifying himself as an RTI applicant and was given the requisite telephone number from which he was requested to obtain the postal address.
DECISION NOTICE From the above, it is clear that there are two issues for resolution:
1) Appellant's complaint that he has not received the information that he has asked for despite the lapse of over a year, and 3
2) Delay in responding to the original RTI application.
On issue No. 1, we have found that in fact Shri Singh has moved no first appeal against the information that he concedes that he obtained on 11.6.07 through a letter dated 7.6.07. Nor has the First Appellate Authority Shri M. S. Upadhye dealt with any perceived shortcoming in the information provided since he has addressed only to the question of delay that was the only issue in the original first appeal of 6.6.'07, which he has for reasons discussed by him, deemed unfounded.
However, because appellate authority Shri Muktesh Chander has now provided appellant Shri Singh the response to his second appeal, which has identified what appellant Shri Singh perceived to be shortcomings in the information provided, that response can now be treated as a response to a first appeal, thus obviating the need for appellant Shri S.S.Singh to move another first appeal. We find that the questions of appellant, are of direct concern to the public authority and because appellant has pleaded no ground for making a direct complaint to us u/s 18, or apprehension of malafide on the part of the Department, the Commission has decided to accept the decision of Addl.
st Commissioner of Police (Traffic) / 1 appellate authority as a decision in 1st appeal. If not satisfied with the information so provided, appellant Shri S.S.Singh nd will be free to move a fresh 2 appeal before us as per Sec 19 (3) On the issue of delay (Issue 2) however, we find that as per evidence on record the application was indeed received by the PIO on 10.5.07 and replied on 7.6.07. There is, therefore, no delay and no ground for penalty. On the other hand DCP (Traffic) In-charge PCR Shri P.S. Bhushan may review the working of the PCR to ensure that it remains RTI friendly. We do, however, concede that we found no grounds to question the competence of the PCR in the question and response give before us during the hearing.
4With the above ruling on both issues, this appeal now stands disposed of. Announced in the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 9.1.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 9.1.2009 5