Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajinder Singh vs Ndmc on 27 June, 2023

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                      के न्द्रीय सच
                                                  ू ना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गगं नाथ मागग, मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NDMCN/A/2023/122667 -UM

Mr. RAJINDER SINGH
                                                                        ....अपीलकताा/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                           बनाम

CPIO,
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
PIO/NODAL OFFICER, RTI CELL,
ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT,
PRAGATI BHAWAN, JAI SINGH
ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001

                                                                  ....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing     :            02.06.2023
Date of Decision    :            27.06.2023



Date of RTI application                                              18-04-2022
CPIO's response                                                      08-06-2022
Date of the First Appeal                                             07-06-2022
First Appellate Authority's response                                 27-06-2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                 26-10-2022

                                        ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following points:

Page 1 of 4
The CPIO vide letter dated 08-06-2022, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 27-06-2022,upheld the reply of the CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
Page 2 of 4
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: The respondent Shri Devender Singh, CPIO/Dy. Director (Enforcement) attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that the information was wrongly denied to him by the CPIO. The appellant further stated that he does business of tour operators and transporters under the name and style of "Golden Taxi Services". Further, he stated that he has on various occasions applied to the appropriate Authorities through proper channels requesting for regularization and transfer of allotment of the taxi stand at Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi in his name. However, he said no action to date was taken by the concerned authorities for regularization and transfer of allotment of the said taxi in the name of Appellant. Therefore, he said he had filed the RTI application relating to the Policies of transfer of allotment of the New Delhi Municipal Council as well as regularization and transfer of allotment dated 03.11.2006 of a taxi booth in the name of Asian Taxi Service and other related information of taxi booths situated at Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.
The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent informed that he has been newly joined in this section and after re-examining the application he will furnish the information to the appellant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish correct and complete information to the appellant, free of cost, Page 3 of 4 in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.



                                                           (Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
                                               (Information Commissioner) (सच        ु )
                                                                            ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत)




(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक)
011-26182598
द्वदनांक / Date: 27.06.2023
GS




                                                                              Page 4 of 4