Central Information Commission
Surindra Kumar vs Transport Department Delhi on 1 July, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/TDDEL/A/2017/148057
CIC/TDDEL/A/2017/156581
Shri Surindra Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO, Dy. Commissioner (ARU & Taxi)
Transport Deptt., Auto Rickshaw Union, Burari,
Delhi-110084
PIO, MLO (ARU & Taxi), Dy. Commissioner Office,
Transport Deptt., Auto Rickshaw Union, Burari,
Delhi-110084
Through: Sh. P S Panchpal-MLO-OPS and ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Sh. Vinod Kumar
Date of Hearing : 13.05.2019
Date of Decision : 13.05.2019
Second Date of Hearing : 20.06.2019
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
148057 08.02.2017 07.03.2017 26.04.2017 19.06.2017
156581 06.06.2017 07.06.2017 12.07.2017 24.07.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/TDDEL/A/2017/148057 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.02.2017, seeking information on nine points regarding action taken on complaint dated 20.12.2014, details Page 1 of 6 of compensation granted to autorickshaw drivers and taxi drivers who lost their lives in road accident victims and their families, and other related information.
PIO vide letter dated 07.03.2017 provided point wise reply to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 26.04.2017. Dy. Commissioner (ARU & Taxi Unit)/FAA, Burari vide order dated 19.06.2017 directed MLO/PIO to provide the required information to the Appellant within 15 days as per the RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Only the appellant is present for hearing and submits that information received by him, in respect of his RTI application dated 08.02.2017 was not satisfactory. He further stated that despite specific direction of the FAA, no further information has been received by him so far.
The respondent PIO/MLO(ARU&TU) appeared after the hearing and submitted that in response to the RTI application dated 08.02.2017, he had provided reply dated 07.03.2017 to the appellant furnishing information as available on record. He explained further that since there was no scheme to compensate the accidental death of an autorickshaw or taxi driver, during the course of his employment, hence, in response to queries 2 and 3, he had stated that no information in this regard is available. When questioned about non-compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO was unable to offer any plausible explanation.
Decision:
After hearing the averments of parties and perusal of the records, it is noted that the PIO/MLO(ARU & TU)-Sh. Rajesh Kumar did reply to the RTI application, but the replies were too concise and cryptic and did not reveal why there was no information/response against some of the queries. Thus the brevity of the replies, led to deficient response and failed to address the queries raised by the appellant. Though it appears from the records that there was no deliberate intent of denial or concealment of information by the PIO, however, the response sent was inadequate.
Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs PIO/MLO(ARU & TU)-Sh. Rajesh Kumar to furnish a revised reply, clarifying his earlier response dated 07.03.2017 and also provide reasonable explanation for non-compliance of the FAA's order dated 19.06.2017. The revised reply shall be submitted before the Commission by 20.05.2019, with an advance copy served upon the appellant. The Commission shall decide the next course of action to be taken Page 2 of 6 on PIO/MLO(ARU & TU)-Sh. Rajesh Kumar, upon receipt of his revised reply and explanation.
20.06.2019 It is noted that no revised reply has been received so far from the PIO/MLO(ARU & TU)-Sh. Rajesh Kumar, despite the specific directions of the Commission, vide order dated 13.05.2019. The Registry is directed to take appropriate steps and issue a notice for non-compliance of the Commission's order, to Sh. Rajesh Kumar - PIO/MLO(ARU & TU). Response must reach the Commission by 20.07.2019, failing which penal action may be initiated by the Registry against the defaulter.
CIC/TDDEL/A/2017/156581 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2017, seeking information on five points regarding drivers' training at Burari Driving Institute. He sought to know the number of drivers who had undergone training since 2013 in pursuance of order No. FDC/OPS/175/2013/1282029.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 12.07.2017. Dy. Commissioner(ARU &Taxi Unit)/FAA, Burari vide order dated 24.07.2017 directed MLO/PIO to provide the required information to the Appellant within 15 days as per the RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present during hearing. Appellant states that he has received no response from the PIO till recently in this case. Such a delay in receiving a response has defeated the very purpose of his quest for information. Respondent-PIO/MLO(OPS) states that he is the Link Officer and took charge approximately four months back. The respondent states that only after he came to know of this case, the information has been now provided by letter dated 10.05.2019. The respondent PIO/MLO(OPS) has submitted a copy of the communication dated 10.05.2019 providing information against queries 1 to 5 and claims that the grievance of the appellant has been settled. However, the PIO/MLO (OPS) could not provide any explanation for the delay in providing the information.
The respondent PIO/MLO(ARU&TU) appeared after the hearing and submitted a written submission stating that the RTI application dated 06.06.2017 was forwarded by him to the PIO/MLO (OPS) on 09.06.2017, since the information Page 3 of 6 sought by the appellant was held by the PIO/MLO-OPS. Likewise, the order dated 24.07.2017 of the FAA was also forwarded to the PIO/MLO-OPS vide communication dated 07.08.2017.
Decision:
Perusal of the records of the case reveal that the RTI application was duly forwarded to the PIO/MLO(OPS) on 09.06.2017 and the FAA's order dated 24.07.2017 was also forwarded vide communication dated 07.08.2017. But response has been provided by the actual custodian of information viz. the PIO/MLO(OPS) only on 10.05.2019. No reason or explanation has been furnished by the PIO/MLO(OPS) for non-furnishing of information for past two years. The conduct of the PIO/MLO-OPS in delaying the information for two years and contravening the specific orders of the FAA without any reasonable cause, is found highly objectionable and the Commission directs Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice upon Sh. P S Pandya-MLO(OPS), to explain why penal action should not be initiated against him for such violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Explanation must reach the Commission at least one week prior to the hearing of the Show Cause case, failing which the case shall be decided ex-parte.
The appeals are disposed off with the above directions.
Show Cause Hearing: 20.06.2019 Sh. Jaspal Singh, the current PIO/MLO(HQ) appeared on behalf of the Notice and submitted that the Noticee's correct name is Sh. P S Panchpal and he is currently under suspension since 16.05.2019. Hence he was unable to attend today's hearing, but has sent a submission dated 15.06.2019, relevant extracts whereof are as follows:
" ........2. The information related from the Society of Driving Training Institute (DTI) managed by Ashok Leyland under controlling of Transport Department. The Driving Training Institute situated at Burari, where the Dy. Comm. (ARU & Taxi) is In-charge to supervision on behalf of Transport Department.
3. The Operation Branch controlling all zonal transport offices regarding day by day working relating to Licensing and registration and implementation of policy etc .....................................
9. The Operation Branch staff not submitted any such type of pending RTI application as well as direction of 1st Appellant Authority order dated 19.06.2017 and 24.07.2017. The applicant required information, which are related for attended drivers for obtained the training certificate from DTI and Dy. Comm. (Auto & Taxi Unit), Burari Page 4 of 6 because Dy. Comm. (ARU & Taxi) is In-charge to supervision a Society of Driving Training Institute on behalf of Transport Department and reply should be given by the PIO of Auto rickhaw and Taxi Unit Branch.
....................................................................
12. The undersigned provided all such information to the applicant vide letter no. F.MLO(OPS)/CIC/2019/18836/2338-39 dated 10.05.2019 and same has been submitted to CIC for information.
Further, the undersigned only 01 of the officer posted in the branch of MLO (HQ), where lot of work load because the office of MLO (HQ) dealing in all Goods Vehicle/Medium and Heavy Passenger vehicles/ implementation orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court/NGT/High Court etc. for commercial vehicles. The MLO (HQ) branch also dealing the Court matters, RTI, DRTI, CPGRAMS, PGMS and LG Listening. Being a single officer posted in the MLO (HQ) branch and it is unable to handle additional charge of MLO (Ops. Branch) without giving a proper time."
The basic reason for issuance of this Show Cause Notice was the delay which occurred in providing the information by the PIO/MLO-OPS. However, perusal of explanation furnished by the Noticee have brought out the following points:
1. The Dy. Comm. (ARU & Taxi) is In-charge of the Driving Training Institute situated at Burari, and therefore under his supervision on behalf of the Transport Department. Hence reply should have been given by the PIO of Autorickhaw and Taxi Unit Branch.
2. The Operations branch is responsible for controlling all zonal transport offices regarding day to day working relating to Licensing and registration and implementation of policy etc.
3. The Operation Branch staff did not put up the relevant RTI application as well as direction of 1st Appellant Authority order dated 19.06.2017 and 24.07.2017 before the Noticee. He came to know about the instant matter only on receipt of the hearing notice dated 05.04.2019 from the Commission.
4. Accordingly, the information was provided to the appellant vide communication dated 10.05.2019.
5. The Noticee who is already under suspension since 16.05.2019 has further informed that he is under extreme work pressure, being the only officer posted in the branch of MLO (HQ), dealing in all Goods Vehicle/Medium and Heavy Passenger vehicles/implementation of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court/NGT/High Court etc. for commercial vehicles apart from dealing with Court matters, RTI, DRTI, CPGRAMS, PGMS and LG Listening. Being a single officer posted in the MLO (HQ) branch, he Page 5 of 6 has submitted that he is unable to handle additional charge of MLO (Ops. Branch) nor assign enough time to the role.
In the light of the aforementioned position, it appears that the delay was purely unintentional. The Noticee who is currently under suspension, appeared after the hearing to elaborate that he was never the custodian of the information sought by the appellant since the Drivers Training Institute situated at Burari, falls under the supervision of the (Auto & Taxi Unit), Burari and had to be responded by the PIO of Autorickhaw and Taxi Unit Branch.
Under the circumstances and considering the facts of the case, the Commission hereby drops the penal action initiated against Sh. P S Panchpal and explanation is sought from Sh. Rajesh Kumar PIO/MLO (ARU & Taxi Unit), Burari as to why did he transfer the RTI application and First Appellate Authority's order to the Operations Branch when the information fell within his own jurisdiction.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar - PIO/MLO(ARU & TU) should furnish his explanation in both the above cases, ensuring that it must reach the Commission by 20.07.2019, failing which appropriate action may be initiated by the Registry against the defaulter.
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 6 of 6