Central Information Commission
Amit Verma vs Transport Department Delhi on 30 August, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DELRC/A/2018/101828/DERCM
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/101829
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/118669
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/118672
Shri Amit Verma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
CIC/DELRC/A/2018/101828/DERCM ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
1. PIO/Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
Vinayak Bhawan, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
Through: Sh. Abhishek, Dy. Secretary DERC
Smt. Prashati Chauhan, DDP, DERC
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/101829
1. PIO/Dy. Assessor & Collector/EDMC,
Shahdara, Delhi
Through: Sh. Zakir Anwar, Section Officer
Sh. Hemant Kumar, AZI
2. PIO/Exe. Engineer(Bldg.)-I EDMC,
Shahdara, Delhi
3. PIO/Exe. Engineer(Bldg.)-II EDMC,
Shahdara, Delhi
4. PIO/Asst. Commissioner, EDMC,
Shahdara, Delhi
5. PIO/SDM (Rev.), Dy. Commissioner (Rev)
Nand Nagri, Delhi
Through: Sh. Debasis Biswal, SDM, Shahdra
6. PIO/Special Commissioner, Dept. of
Trade & Taxes, IP Estate, New Delhi
Through: Smt. Rekha Rani Sharma, AC(W-75)
7. PIO/Dept. of Rev. 5, Sham Nath Marg,Delhi
CIC/DTTEL/A/2018/118672
1. PIO/Delhi Integrated Multi-Modal Transit
System Ltd., Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi
Through: Sh. Suneet Mudgal, GM-HR
2. PIO/P.C. (Cluster), Transport Dept., 5/9
Under Hill Road, Delhi
Sh. Balraj, Rajghat Deptt.-I
Page 1 of 8
3. PIO/Asst. GM, Transport Dept., ScindiaHouse,
Delhi
Through: Sh. Jandu Pal Singh
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/118669
1. PIO under RTI Executive, Engg. (Bldg.)-
II/Shah-N.East Delhi Muncipal, Keshav
Chowk, Shahdra, delhi-110053
2. PIO/Dy. Assessor & Collector/EDMC,
Shahdara, Delhi
Through: Sh. Zakir Anwar. Section Officer on
behalf of PIO/Sh. A.K.Sirish, Dy. A&C
Date of Hearing : 26.08.2019
Date of Decision : 27.08.2019
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
101828 29.08.2017 27.09.2017 25.10.2017 20.11.2017
101829 22.08.2017 19.09.2017 03.10.2017 - -
118672 06.11.2017 13.12.2017 02.01.2018 - -
118669 22.08.2017 15.11.2017 07.12.2017 01.02.2018
CIC/DELRC/A/2018/101828/DERCM
Information soughtand background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 29.08.2017 seeking information on 17 points, inter alia;
1. What is the tariff category of electricity bills of property House No. 417/324, Adarsh Mohalla, Krishna Gali, Maujpur (Chacha) furniture House, Shop No. 324, Main Road, Maujpur, near Shiv Shakti Mandir & Dharamshala, Yamuna Vihar Road, Delhi-110053, whether domestic or non domestic?
2. What was the tariff category of electricity bill of this property in the year 2008-2017, whether domestic or non domestic?
3. Are they using any tempered electricity meter in which meter speed (speed of meter) is slowed down very much?
4. If yes, then how much percent meter speed is slowed down?
5. Are they using any device to slow down the speed of meter with involvement of local electrician?
6. Are they found to be guilty of electricity theft or any other crime? Etc. PIO/DERC, vide letter dated 27.09.2017 stated that information sought is not available with DERC. He was further informed by DERC that the Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 23.04.2009 in the matter of DERC Vs. CIC & Ors.
(W.P.(C)6735/2007, has directed, that DERC cannot use its regulating power to Page 2 of 8 obtain information (which is not available with it) from other bodies or concerns in order to answer queries or information on RTI applications received by DERC.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed first Appeal dated 25.10.2017. FAA vide order dated 20.11.2017upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service of notice for the hearing in advance.
Respondent claims that the information requested by the Appellant in his RTI application does not pertain to DERC. Respondent reiterates the contents of the reply dated 27.09.2017 and relies on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 23.04.2009 in the matter of DERC vs. CIC & Ors. (W.P.(C)6735/2007. Respondent further stresses on the fact that in the same decisioning of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was clarified that DERC cannot be compelled to access information from any of the DISCOMS. The respondent PIO submits that the power distribution companies (DISCOMs) are the actual custodian of information but not amenable to the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission finds that the RTI application in the question has been replied to adequately. The Appellant is at liberty to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed off.
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/101829 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 22.08.2017 before the PIO/Dy. A&C, EDMC seeking information on 52 points, inter alia;
1. Is the property House No. 417/324, Adarsh Mohalla, Krishna Gali, Maujpur House No. 324, Main Road, Maujpur, near Shiv Shakti Mandir, Yamuna Vihar Road, Delhi-110053, a residential property?
2. Is the property House No. 417/324 Adarsh Mohalla, Krishna Gali, Maujpur, House No. 324, Main Road, Maujpur, Near Shiv Shakti Mandir, Yamuna Vihar Road, Delhi-110053 recognized by MCD as a commercial property?
3. Is the property House No. 417/324 Adarsh Mohalla, Krishna Gali, Maujpur, House No. 324, Main Road, Maujpur, Near Shiv Shakti Mandir, Yamuna Vihar Road, Delhi-110053 recognized by MCD as a mixed land use property or not?
4. Under which category this property lies?
5. Is this the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) property?
6. What is the category of this area of Maujpur whether A,B,C,D,E or F etc.
7. When this property was purchased by Late Shri Sohan Pal Verma?
8. What is the total area of this property as per recored?Page 3 of 8
9. Is any portion of this property/building above 15 meter of height? Explain which portions? Etc PIO/Dy. Assessor & Controller, Shahdara North Zone vide letter dated 28.08.2017 transferred the RTI application to PIO/EE(Bldg.) PIO/Dy. Assessor & Controller, Shahdara North Zone vide letter dated 19.09.2017 stated that as per available record, no record/file is available in this office.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 03.10.2017. FAA directed the PIO to provide the complete information to the appellant (Copy of FAA's order has not been placed on record) In compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO/Dy. Assessor and Controller, Shahdara North Zone, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, furnished a point wise reply vide reply dated 07.11.2017.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service of notice for the hearing in advance.
A submission dated 23.08.2019 is received from FAA/Jt. A&C/ Shah. North Zone, Sh. K.D.Verma. Para 3 of the said submission, indicates as per the available records, that the Respondent Deptt. has issued and served notice to the owner/occupier of property No.417/324, main road No.66, Maujpur, elhi-53 for not filing property tax return. In response to the notice assessment order for the said property was passed on 31.03.2018. After the assessment the tax payer has deposited property tax w.e.f. 2004-05 to 2018-19 which comes out to Rs. 1,99.844/- which is available on record.
And para 4 states that, on routine checking of the Comm. Establishment in the area, field staff of A&C Deptt. found that the owner /occupier of the property has changed the additional use of the existing property, the Deptt. again issues a notice u/s 123-D bearing no. AA&C/SHN/2019/D-135 dated 21.02.2019 and a Deptt. notice u/s 154 (1) of the DMC Act 1957 issued and served to the owner/occupier. Further the Deptt. will initiate coercive action in due course as per the provisions of the DMC Act to recover the outstanding amount. Another submission dated 20.08.2019 is received from the Respondent, PIO/Asst. Comm. Ward-75/ Smt. Rekha Rani Sharma, addressed to the Appellant, which provides answers to his query nos. 43-47 & 52.
Decision:
Commission observes that neither the Appellant nor any authorized representative on his behalf is present for the scheduled hearing, to make a submission in this case. It is surprising how the reply sent by PIO/ Sh. Rajesh Kumar, in compliance of the FAA's order, explicitly denied the availability of the requested information with the Respondent office on the grounds that it did not pertain to his office, and now, after the service of the Second Appeal notice on the Respondent, the same has been readily made available with the Respondent authority and has been supplied to the Appellant.Page 4 of 8
The Respondent claims that a copy of the desired information has been sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.08.2019. However, Commission notes that there is no document on record to reflect that a copy of the submission dated 23.08.2019 has also been sent to the Appellant. In that case, Respondent is directed to send a consolidated copy of both the submissions; dated 23.08.2019 and 20.08.2019 to the Appellant within 1 week from the date of this order, failing which penal action may ensue.
The appeal stands disposed off with the above directions.
CIC/DTTEL/A/2018/118672 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 06.11.2017 seeking information on 25 points;
1. What is the action taken report on that complaint dated 09.10.2017?
provide the certified/attested copies of that (charge-sheet, memorandum etc)
2. Have you terminated/dismissed the guilty driver of DTC Bus No. DL 1P C 3098 of route no. 348 from Govt. service or not? Provide the attested copy of that.
3. How many DTC Green Colored buses of route no. 118,348 from Morigate to Mayur Vihar Ph-III & 378 of Kendriya Terminal are plying on their routes per day. Provide their bus nos of each route nos separately.
4. How many routes do these buses of each route nos separately travel per day?
5. How many of these buses of route nos 118,348 and 378 DTD Green colored have increased after complaint of 09.10.2017?
6. Is there are law/rule that the front gate of DTC buses can be opened only for girls/ladies entry only?
7. If yes, then who has made this law/rule? Etc PIO/PCO (Cluster) vide letter dated 13.12.2017 informed the Appellant that the matter was related to DIMTS.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 02.01.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant filed Second Appeal in the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service of notice for the hearing in advance.
A submission dated 08.08.2019, is received from Sh. Suneet Mudgal, GM-HR which indicates that the instant RTI application pertains to DTC and/or Transport Deptt. GNCTD Another submission dated 13.08.2019 has been received from the Dy. CGM(Tr.)/PIO(Hqrs.), DTC along with enclosures which reveal that vide letter dated 13.11.2017 information against query number 25 has been provided and vide reply dated 04.12.2017 information against queries 19, 20 and 22 has been provided.
Lastly, a submission dated 23.08.2019 has been filed by the Respondent/ Sh. Balraj, which indicate that a point wise reply has sent to the Appellant, addressing his queries, along with the corresponding enclosures. Respondent/ Sh. Balraj also brings it to the attention of the Commission that, despite being Page 5 of 8 offered numerous opportunities of inspection, the Appellant never showed up in the Respondent public authority for conducting the same.
Decision:
Upon careful perusal of the records, it appears that adequate information has been provided to the Appellant by the Respondent vide letter dated 23.08.2019. Commission takes note of the submissions made by the Respondent/ Sh. Balraj; claiming that multiple opportunities were offered to the Appellant for conducting inspection of the desired records but, the same were not availed by him. Under these circumstances and since the Appellant is not present today to argue his case, Commission observes that no further adjudication is required. The appeal, therefore, stands disposed off.
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/118669 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 22.08.2017 seeking information on 52 points, inter alia;
1. Is the property House No. 417/324, Adarsh Mohalla, Krishna Gali, Maujpur House No. 324, Main Road, Maujpur, near Shiv Shakti Mandir, Yamuna Vihar Road, Delhi-110053, a residential property?
2. Is the property House No. 417/324 Adarsh Mohalla, Krishna Gali, Maujpur, House No. 324, Main Road, Maujpur, Near Shiv Shakti Mandir, Yamuna Vihar Road, Delhi-110053 recognized by MCD as a commercial property?
3. Is the property House No. 417/324 Adarsh Mohalla, Krishna Gali, Maujpur, House No. 324, Main Road, Maujpur, Near Shiv Shakti Mandir, Yamuna Vihar Road, Delhi-110053 recognized by MCD as a mixed land use property or not?
4. Under which category this property lies?
5. Is this the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) property?
6. What is the category of this area of Maujpur whether A,B,C,D,E or F etc.
7. When this property was purchased by Late Shri Sohan Pal Verma?
8. What is the total area of this property as per recored?
9. Is any portion of this property/building above 15 meter of height? Explain which portions? Etc PIO/Exe. Engineer (Bldg-II), vide letter dated 15.11.2017 forwarded the information to the appellant provided by the concerned PIO. Copy enclosed.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 07.12.2017. FAA vide order dated 01.02.2018 upheld the reply of PIO and also advised to the appellant to file appeal for remaining information with FAA, House Tax Department.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 6 of 8Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
None of the parties are present despite service of notice for the hearing in advance.
A submission dated 23.08.2019 is received from FAA/Jt. A&C/ Shah. North Zone, Sh. K.D.Verma. Para 3 of the said submission states that the Respondent Deptt. has issued and served notice to the owner/occupier of property No.417/324, main road No.66, Maujpur, elhi-53 for not filing property tax return. In response to the notice assessment order for the said property was passed on 31.03.2018. after the assessment the tax oayer ha sdeposited property tax w.e.f.
2004-05 to 2018-19 which comes out to Rs. 1,99.844/- which is available with on record.
And para 4 states that, on routine checking of the Comm. Establishment in the area, it is field staff of A&C Deptt. found that the owner /occupier of the property has changed the additional use of the existing property, the Deptt. again issues a notice u/s 123-D bearing no. AA&C/SHN/2019/D-135 dated 21.02.2019 and a Deptt. notice u/s 154 (1) of the DMC Act 1957 issued and served to the owner/occupier. Further the Deptt. will initiate coercive action in due course as per the provisions of the DMC Act to recover the outstanding amount. Another submission dated 20.08.2019 is received from the Respondent, PIO/Asst. Comm. Ward-75/ Smt. Rekha Rani Sharma, addressed to the Appellant, which provides answers to his query nos. 43-47 & 52.
Decision:
Neither Respondent nor any authorized representative on his behalf is present for the scheduled hearing. Although one Sh. Zakir Anwar, (Section Officer, Assessor & Collector/EDMC), present on behalf of the same department in some other case, is reappearing before the Commission in the instant case but, he is completely unaware about the facts leading to the present appeal and is, therefore, unable to provide any assistance to the Commission in deciding the instant appeal.
Records reveal that the reply forwarded to the Appellant by then PIO/Executive engineer (bldg.)-II - Sh. S.D.Tomar, as received from JE(B)Sh.(N), provides no substantial information, as it merely states that, the information sought is either unavailable or not related to the Respondent office. It is even more surprising that the FAA upheld the inadequate reply given by the PIO/EE(B)-II/SH(N) in its order and instead advised the Appellant to appeal before the FAA, House tax Deptt. Shahdra (NZ) for the remaining information. Perusal of the available records indicate that no subsequent appeal, on the advice of the FAA, was filed by the Appellant before the FAA, House tax Deptt. Sahdra (NZ).
Under these circumstances, the then PIO/Executive engineer (bldg.)-II - Sh. S.D.Tomar is directed to submit a satisfactory and detailed explanation for not transferring the application to the appropriate custodian of information, causing obstruction in the flow of information and not bothering to be present during the hearing thereby vitiating the hearing. This explanation, from Sh. S.D.Tomar must reach the Commission by 13.09.2019, providing a reasonable response and explaining the omissions on their respective parts, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.Page 7 of 8
As for the submission dated 23.08.2019 is concerned. Commission notes that there is no document on record to reflect that a copy of the same has also been sent to the Appellant. Respondent is hereby directed to send a copy of the submission dated 23.08.2019 to the Appellant within 1 week from the date of this order, failing which penal action may ensue.
The appeal stands disposed off 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 8 of 8