Central Information Commission
Sanjeev Kumar vs Transport Department Delhi on 21 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/TDDEL/C/2023/617271
Sanjeev Kumar ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Transport Department, GNCTD,
5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi-110054 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16-05-2024
Date of Decision : 17-05-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 10-12-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Nil
First Appellate Authority's order : 13-02-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04-03-2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10-12-2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Find enclosed herewith latter dated 08/07/2020 of Sh Sanjay Diwan OSD to Transport Minister addressed to Commissioner Transport in which Honble Minister desired to consider the request of Satbir Singh, Driver transport department at Palam Authority at Sector-10, Dwarka. Provide the action taken and all other recorded information available in Transport Department in Page 1 of 5 reference of this letter. Provide the remarks of Commissioner and subordinate officer's remarks on this letter including, the file if any prepared and remarks on noting sheet in this reference. Also provide the copy of any reply sent to Transport Minister on this matter.
2. From 19/11/2018 a Driver Sh Satish Kumar with vehicle No DL-4CAH-1111 is deployed to MLO Shekh Sarai Authority with competent Authority Remarks in Approval May be finished early. Provide the copy of order vide which the Driver with vehicles was deployed to MLO Shekh Sarai Authority and when the work was finished and driver with vehicles returned to Transport HQ. Provide the copy of all recorded information about this vehicle about deployment and return timer period under this approval dated 16/11/2018 of scot (ct)(copy of noting sheet attached).
3. SO(CT) deployed a Driver Sh Satish Kumar with vehicle No DL-4CAH-1111 to MLO Shekh Sarai Authority without approval of competent Authority from 12/06/2019 and later on 27/07/2019 ex-post facto approval file was processed in which DC(CT) remarked that work related to file is completed and we shall depute the vehicle on alternate days Monday, Wednesday, Friday and competent Authority directed DC(CT) to ask concern MLO till which date is in question vehicle is required, Why record not once should not be trf to Shekh Sarai. Provide the copy of approval vide which this above driver Sh Satish Kumar with vehicle No DL-4CAH-1111 to MLO Shekh Sarai is deployed. Also provide the copy of page 42 to 46/C on which extract approval of competent authority was taken. Provide the copy of all recorded information about this vehicle about deployment and return timer period under this approval dated 16/11/2018 of scot (ct)(copy of noting sheet attached).
4. Provide the standing order and night parking stay location of Ambassador DL-4CAH-1111 from 18/11/2018 to till date and copy of competent authority approval for the said location approval.
5. Provide the date of GPS location log of Ambassador DL-4CAH-1111 from 18/11/2018 to till date. 6 Provide the copy of competent authority approval including noting sheet of Sh Chander Bhaan Driver currently posted at MLO Shekh Sarai Authority.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide its order dated 03-02-2024 directed the PIO (CTB) to provide the requisite information to the Complainant within 15 days of issue of this order.Page 2 of 5
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Navin Kochhar, Pollution Control Officer-cum-PIO present in person.
Written submission of the Respondent is taken on record. The Respondent invited attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission dated 13.05.2024 wherein he inter alia stated as under -
"It is humbly submitted that the undersigned took over the charge of the care taking branch or 22nd March 2024. It is also to bring to your kind notice that from the date of RTI i.e. 10/12/2022, 4 (four) officers/ In-charge have been either retired or transferred from this branch to other Department/ branch. After going through the records available in the branch and information procured from other office, the information sought under RTI dated 10/12/2022 by the applicant Sh. Sanjeev Kumar R/o RZ- 237 B Block, Gopal Nagar Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043 is as under:
1. As per available records, request of Sh. Satbir Singh Driver was considered but no final decision was taken with respect to his transfer to Palam Authority, at Sector 10 Dwarka. File noting in this regard is attached as annexure A/1 to annexure A/2.
2. As per available records, Sh. Satish Kumar Driver with vehicle No. DL-4CAH-
1111 was deployed at Zonal office Sarai Kale Khan vide order dated 19/11/2018. (Orders Copy and corresponding noting copy attached as annexure B/1 to annexure B/2).
3. Order and approval noting sheet with respect to deployment of Sh. Satish Kumar Driver along- with vehicle DL-4CAH-1111 are same as reply No. 2. Copies of pages 42/C to 46/C are also attached as annexure C/1 to annexure C/5.
4. The vehicle No. DL-4CAH-1111 is at the disposal of DTO (SZ) used for carrying files & dak from Sheikh Sarai record room to Sarai Kale Khan and vice versa and Page 3 of 5 as per letter received from DTO (SZ) Night parking location is Sheikh Sarai record room. (Copy enclosed as annexure D/1 to annexure D/2)
5. No GPS record available with care taking branch.
6. Order and noting sheet of approval of Sh. Chander Bhan Driver posted at MLO Sheikh Sarai Authority attached as annexure E/1 to annexure E/3.
Irrespective of the facts as stated above, it is pertinent to submit here that the same applicant had mooted RTI application dated 15/08/2020 seeking information which was largely identical on same matter and information was provided. Please pursue Annexure F/1 to F/10."
Decision The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Respondent has provided reply in compliance to FAA's order vide letter dated 13.05.2024. The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing final reply to the Complainant on the above-mentioned RTI application. In this regard, the Respondent, during the hearing, apologized for the same and assured that such lapses would not recur in future.
The Commission further observes that in a complaint case, the Commission cannot give any relief for information under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only restricted role lies is to adjudicate whether the information has been malafidely denied by the CPIO or undue hindrance has been caused by the Respondent. It is noteworthy that the Complainant was not present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter.
Further, the facts of the instant case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
Page 4 of 5" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of mala fides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
THE FAA, Transport Department, GNCTD, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi - 110054 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)