Central Information Commission
Avdhesh Kumar vs Transport Department Delhi on 8 July, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/629789
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/629792
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/629797
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/629798
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/633590
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/631946
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/631981
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/633667
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/633589
Shri Avdhesh Kumar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/MLO (ARU), Burari. ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
PIO/System Analyst, Transport
Dept., 5/9 Under Hill Road, Delhi
PIO/MLO (OPS), Transport
Dept., 5/9 Under Hill Road, Delhi
PIO/MLO (SW-II), Vasant Vihar,
Delhi
PIO/MLO (SWZ-I), Palam, Delhi
PIO/MLO (NE), Shahdara, Delhi
PIO/AS (STA), STA Branch, 5/9
Under Hill Road, Delhi
Through: Shri Rajesh Kumar,
PIO/MLO, ARU & TU; Shri Satya Pal,
Sr. System Analyst; Shri P.P. Baruah,
System Analyst; Shri Mahesh Verma,
PIO/Asst. Secretary, STA and Shri Mukesh
Budhiraja, PIO/MLO, Dwarka present through
audio conference
Date of Hearing : 07.07.2020
Date of Decision : 08.07.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Page 1 of 15
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO Second
Nos. on appeal Appeal
filed on filed on
629789 24.05.2018 22.06.2018 06.07.2018 08.08.2018 25.08.2018
629792 30.05.2018 22.06.2018 06.07.2018 08.08.2018 25.08.2018
629797 31.05.2018 22.06.2018 06.07.2018 08.08.2018 25.08.2018
629798 01.06.2018 22.06.2018 06.07.2018 08.08.2018 25.08.2018
633590 07.06.2018 11.09.2018 21.07.2018 Nil 15.10.2018
631946 25.05.2018 04.06.2018 21.07.2018 Nil 21.09.2018
631981 01.06.2018 03.07.2018 21.07.2018 Nil 22.09.2018
11.07.2018
27.07.2018
633667 07.06.2018 12.07.2018 21.07.2018 Nil 16.10.2018
633589 05.06.2018 Multiple 23.07.2018 Nil 15.10.2018
Replies with
different
zones
(1) CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/629789
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.05.2018 seeking information on
the following 9 points regarding works at the Autorickshaw, Taxi and E-
rickshaw units i.e., 1. Renewal of certificate of fitness; 2. Duplicate certificate of
fitness; 3. Registration of a new Autorickshaw, Taxi or E-rickshaw; 4. Duplicate
registration certificate; 5. Duplication permit; 6. Transfer of ownership; 7.
Addition of hypothecation; 8. Deletion of hypothecation; 9. Renewal of permit;
and 10. Change of address in the certificate of registration:
1. Form no. required to be filled in.
2. List of documents required to be attached along with legal provision that mandates
it or a copy of internal order or circular or public notice.
3. Number of photos of the owner or permit-holder required.
4. Fees payable.
5. Penalties payable for delays or other reasons.
6. Applicable time periods for applying.
7. Applicable time periods for delivery of final document.
8. Whether presence of owner or permit-holder required at the time of application.
9. Whether biometric information of owner or permit-holder captured for
authentication
[Queries are verbatim]
PIO/MLO (ARU), vide letter dated 22.06.2018 informed the Appellant as: "The
information is not maintained separately. You may inspect the official record on
any working day and may check the procedure to get the information and also
take the photocopy of the information after paying the government fee."
Page 2 of 15
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal
dated 06.07.2018. FAA vide order dated 08.08.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with
the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from Shri Rajesh Kumar, MLO (ARU & TU), Transport Department, Burari, Delhi vide letter dated 29.06.2020 wherein he stated that a reply dated 11.09.2018 was provided to the Appellant, which contained certain information that was already maintained by the Department such as details/process for new registration of motor vehicles; details of documents to be submitted while obtaining a duplicate registration certificate; transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle etc. comprising around 35 pages.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, representative of the Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that the information provided on 22.06.2018 and 11.09.2018 is vague, incomplete and baseless.
Respondent is represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar, PIO/MLO, ARU & TU through audio conference. He submitted that point-wise information has been provided to the Appellant on 11.09.2018 as to what Form number has to be submitted for what purpose; fee payable while submitting the relevant Form; penalties levied for delays and other reasons; application process time etc. Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the Appellant has sought general information pertaining to process/procedure for obtaining/transferring the ownership of a vehicle; details pertaining to endorsement/deletion of hypothecation on registration certificate; documents to be submitted for change of address/making alteration in registration certificate etc. Further, on scrutiny of the contents of the reply provided by the Respondent vide letter dated 11.09.2018, it is noted that relevant copies of the annexures are provided to the Appellant, which encompasses all the information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
In view of the above, Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
Page 3 of 15(2) CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/629792 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2018 seeking information on the following 2 points:
1. Please inform if there was any discussion or proposal concerning the setting up of a welfare board for the benefit of auto rickshaw and or taxi drivers.
2. If yes, furnish a copy of the file including file notings, deliberations, proposals, reports, minutes of meeting etc. [Queries are verbatim] PIO/MLO (ARU), vide letter dated 22.06.2018 informed the Appellant as follows:
"The information is not maintained separately. You may inspect the official record on any working day to get the information and also take the photocopy of the information after paying the government fee."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.07.2018. FAA vide order dated 08.08.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from Shri Rajesh Kumar, MLO (ARU & TU), Transport Department, Burari, Delhi vide letter dated 27.06.2020 wherein he stated that a reply dated 04.09.2018 was provided to the Appellant, which categorically stated that no file regarding discussion or proposal concerning the setting up of a welfare board for the benefit of auto rickshaw and/or taxi drivers is traceable in their office.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, representative of the Appellant, participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent.
Respondent is represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar, PIO/MLO, ARU & TU through audio conference. He reiterated the contents of the written submission.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the Respondent in their reply dated 22.06.2018 offered inspection of the relevant records. However, another reply dated 04.09.2018 states that no documents/records pertaining to the subject-
matter of the instant RTI Application is available in their office.
It is astonishing to note that the Respondent has provided two different replies, which is incorrect and bad in the eyes of law. The Respondent should provide a Page 4 of 15 written explanation to the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission, by 31.07.2020, explaining the apparent contradiction between the two replies.
(3) CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/629797 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2018 seeking a copy of the latest and comprehensive conditions of tourist permit for motorcabs.
PIO/MLO (ARU), vide letter dated 22.06.2018 informed the Appellant as: "The information is not maintained separately. You may inspect the official record on any working day to get the information and also take the photocopy of the information after paying the government fee."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.07.2018. FAA vide order dated 08.08.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from Shri Rajesh Kumar, MLO (ARU & TU), Transport Department, Burari, Delhi vide letter dated 29.06.2020 wherein a reply dated 04.09.2018 was provided to the Appellant, which states that a copy of permit conditions of tourist permits for motor cabs was provided with relevant enclosure i.e., photocopy of the relevant provisions from The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, representative of the Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the information received in the letter dated 04.09.2018 because the Respondent has merely provided a copy of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules but certain aspects like fitting of electronic fare metre, fitting of GPS device etc. are not covered in the information provided.
Respondent is represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar, PIO/MLO, ARU & TU through audio conference. He submitted that apart from the information provided in the letter dated 04.09.2018, the Respondent not does not have any further information with them. He further submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act was amended in the year 2019 and the same has not been amended on their website.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the information provided by the Respondent is not in accordance with the latest amendments and by merely providing a photocopy of the relevant rules does not suffice. Further, Commission also observes that the recent amendment made to the Motor Page 5 of 15 Vehicles Act should have been updated on the Respondent's website, which is also not in accordance with Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, Commission deems it fit to direct the PIO to update their website by publishing the relevant rules, regulations, instructions and manuals of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 as per Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and a copy of the same shall be provided to the Appellant before 31.08.2020. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission within one week thereafter.
(4) CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/629798 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2018 seeking information on the following 9 points:
1. I understand that the control room from where auto rickshaws and taxis fitted with GPS devices are monitored and tracked was with DIMTS operating from Kashmere Gate. Please provide the period during which it was with DIMTS.
2. Furnish the date on which it started from its current location along with current address.
3. I would like to inspect the control room at the present location. Please facilitate inspection in accordance with para 17 printed overleaf.
4. Furnish the names and designations of persons who have been allotted unique IDs and passwords for accessing information through GPS devices.
5. Please inform the timings when the said control room is operational/manned and the no. of personnel deployed on per shift basis.
6. Furnish the names and designations of personnel deputed for the control room as at 01.06.2018.
7. Furnish the list of every equipment costing more than Rs.10,000 available or being using in the control room.
8. Furnish the area in square metres or feet or yards of the control room.
9. Copies of all communications received since 2011 regarding location information of autos and taxis fitted with GPS devices, along with copies of information supplied by you:
a. From the offices of public prosecutors and/or traffic courts b. From Delhi Police c. From general public d. From owners themselves of autorickshaws and taxis e. From your own enforcement branch [Queries are verbatim] PIO/MLO (ARU), vide letter dated 22.06.2018 informed the Appellant that no information has been sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application; on point nos. 2 and 9 of the RTI Application, he stated as: "The information is not maintained separately. You may inspect the official record on any working day to get the information and also take the photocopy of the information after paying the government fee" and on point nos. 3 to 8 of the RTI Application, he stated that the information pertains to Enforcement Branch and that the RTI Application has been sent to EO (HQ) on 06.06.2018.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 06.07.2018. FAA vide order dated 08.08.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Page 6 of 15Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from Shri Rajesh Kumar, MLO (ARU & TU), Transport Department, Burari, Delhi vide letter dated 29.06.2020 wherein he stated that replies dated 04.09.2018 and 05.09.2018 was provided to the Appellant and informed that DIMTS is still tracking the auto rickshaws and taxis with GPS devices and the initial date of commencement is not found in any of their records on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application and on remaining points he intimated that the information pertains to Enforcement Branch and the Appellant may contact the Enforcement Officer (HQ), Transport Department, GNCTD, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi - 110054.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, representative of the Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent because both the letters dated 04.09.2018 and 05.09.2018 are identical. He further stated that the information provided on point no. 1 of the RTI Application is incorrect. Respondent is represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar, PIO/MLO, ARU & TU through audio conference. He submitted that the control centre of DIMTS is operating both at Kashmere Gate and Rajpura Road, New Delhi.
Appellant interjected to state that he wants to inspect both the aforesaid control rooms. Upon being asked in what capacity the Appellant is seeking inspection, he referred to Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the Respondent has provided identical replies to the Appellant on 04.09.2018 and 05.09.2018, which reflects lack of proper management in the Respondent public authority's office. Further, Commission also observes that the Appellant has requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to permit him to inspect the control room as per Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act. It is relevant to state herein that Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act states:
Section 2(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-
(i) inspection of work, documents, records; .......
Adverting to the supra, the Appellant's interpretation of the phrase inspection of work is far-fetched and baseless because he has not substantiated any befitting intent for inspecting the control rooms and therefore Commission Page 7 of 15 rejects his request on the ground that the same might adversely impact the operations of the public authority.
However, since the Respondent has already forwarded a copy of the instant RTI Application to Enforcement Officer (HQ), Transport Department, GNCTD, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi, the Commission directs Shri V.D. Sharma, PIO/Enforcement Officer-Hqs to provide an action taken report on the instant RTI Application to the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission within 4 weeks from the date of issue of this order.
(5) CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/633590 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.06.2018 seeking information on the following 5 points pertaining to Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
1. It is learnt that in the year 2015 or 2016, you had issued an order or notification as to who can or cannot, and for violation of which conditions of permit, the permit of a public service vehicle can be suspended u/s 86. Please inform if this is so.
2. If so, furnish a copy.
3. Furnish copies of all other subsequent orders or notifications about section 86.
4. Furnish the number of TSRs and all types of taxis for which section 86 has been invoked month wise from 01.04.2015 till 31.03.2018 in the following format:
Month and year No. of TSRs No. of taxis
5. During the above stated three year period, furnish the no. of days for which the permits were suspended. Or, alternatively, if you have any standard reports in this connection, please furnish copies.
Number of days for which permit suspended No. of TSRs No. of Taxis 1 2 5 15 30 etc [Queries are verbatim] PIO/MLO (ARU), Burari vide letter dated 06.07.2018 informed the Appellant as:
"The information is not maintained separately. You may inspect the official record on any working day to get the information and also take the photocopy of the information after paying the government fee."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.07.2018.
PIO/MLO (ARU), vide letter dated 11.09.2018 intimated the Appellant on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application that no notification regarding Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act is traceable in their office and that the Appellant may inspect the official record in their office on any working day; on point no. 3 of the RTI Application, a copy of Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act was provided and on point nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI Application, he stated as: "No information Page 8 of 15 regarding number of TSRs and all type of taxies for which section 86 has been invoked month-wise form 01.04.2015 till 31.03.2018 is maintained separately in this office, you may inspect the official record in this office on any working day."
Since the First Appeal was not adjudicated by the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from Shri Rajesh Kumar, MLO (ARU & TU), Transport Department, Burari, Delhi vide letter dated 29.06.2020 stating that replies were sent to the Appellant on 06.07.2018, 11.09.2018 and 30.10.2018.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, representative of the Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent. He further stated that on point no. 3 of the RTI Application he had specifically sought orders/notifications in adherence of Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act but the Respondent has merely provided a photocopy of the aforesaid Section.
Respondent is represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar, PIO/MLO, ARU & TU through audio conference. He submitted that the information provided on point no. 1 of the RTI Application vide letter dated 30.10.2018 is different from 11.09.2018. He further submitted that he will abide by the order of the Commission, if any in the matter.
Decision:
Upon perusal of facts on records as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the instant RTI Application has been handled in a lackadaisical manner.
In view of this, Commission directs the PIO to obtain relevant information on point no. 1 of the RTI Application from the concerned Assistant Secretary (STA) and provide a revised and point-wise reply to the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission.
The aforesaid direction shall be complied with before 31.08.2018, failing which action will be initiated against the errant official.Page 9 of 15
(6) CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/631946 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.05.2018 seeking information on the following 5 points:
1. Do you have link to information under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the homepage of your transport department's website?
2. If your answer to above query is YES, furnish a printout of the homepage of transport department's website highlighting link to the said information.
3. Furnish complete URL/Link of the page that provides information as required to be disclosed under section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005. Don't just give transport department's website link but actual URL/Link to the relevant page.
4. Furnish printouts of information under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 concerning the transport department.
5. Furnish the date when the said information was last updated.
[Queries are verbatim] PIO/System Analyst, Transport Dept., vide letter dated 04.06.2018 furnished point-wise reply to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.07.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, representative of the Appellant, participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that the Respondent has provided a print-out of the homepage of the transport department's website. He further stated that there is no mention pertaining to mandatory disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in the Respondent's website.
Respondent is represented by Shri Satya Pal, Sr. System Analyst, IT Branch and Shri P.P. Baruah, System Analyst, IT Branch through audio conference. Shri Satya Pal submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is available in their website. He further submitted that the relevant portal i.e., www.delhi.gov.in was modified, redesigned and migrated in 2019 to www.transport.delhi.gov.in in which all the information regarding mandatory disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act is available.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on records as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is available in the public domain and the same has been conveyed to the Appellant by the Respondent.
Hence, no further scope of intervention is required in the instant matter.Page 10 of 15
(7) CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/631981 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2018 seeking information on the following 6 points pertaining to PSV badge for auto rickshaws and taxis:
1. Please furnish the following information in respect of applying for a PSV badge.
a. Copy of a public notice showing list of documents required. b. Whether police verification is done before or after application submission c. Whether training is undertaken before or after application submission? d. Whether PSV badge is hand-delivered or sent through post e. Maximum time duration as per your citizens' charter for delivery of the badge from the date of application
2. Furnish a copy of the entire file concerning any proposed changes about the issue of PSV badge.
3. Furnish a list of all institutions authorised by you for imparting two day training along with addresses, contact persons' names and their telephone numbers.
4. Furnish the entire document/file that contains the guidelines and conditions for obtaining authorisation for imparting training.
5. Furnish a copy of YOUR curriculum/syllabus according to which the training has to be imparted (Please do not supply programme details of an institution --supply the curriculum mandated by you).
6. Furnish copies of all files concerning authorisation to every institution including the application made, file notings, inspection conduced, the final letter of authorisation and any further developments, complaints, etc. [Queries are verbatim] PIO/MLO (OPS), vide letter dated 03.07.2018 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application and on the remaining points he intimated that the information pertains to PCO(OPS-II).
PIO/MLO (Vasant Vihar), vide letter dated 11.07.2018 furnished a reply on point no. 3 of the RTI Application and on the remaining points he intimated that the information pertains to Headquarters (DC-OPS Branch).
PIO/MLO (OPS)/HQ, vide letter dated 27.07.2018 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on point nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the RTI Application.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.07.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, representative of the Appellant, participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent. He further stated that the First Appeal has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority in the instant matter.Page 11 of 15
Representatives from the Respondent did not take the call despite repeated attempts.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the information provided to the Appellant is not in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, it is deemed expedient that the matter be remanded to the FAA/DC(OPS-II), Transport Department, GNCTD, Under Hill Road, Delhi to adjudicate the First Appeal on merits with a reasoned, speaking order since the Appellant is not interested in attending the hearing of the First Appeal. Compliance report from the office of the FAA must reach the Commission before 31.08.2020 to avoid initiation of action as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
(8) CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/633667 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 07.06.2018 seeking information on the following 2 points:
1. Furnish a list of all meetings of the STA that took place form 01.01.2014 till date.
2. Furnish copies of the minutes of all the above meetings. You may email me the minutes at [email protected] or supply certified copies as per law.
[Queries are verbatim] PIO/Transport Dept. STA Branch, vide letter dated 12.07.2018 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 21.07.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, representative of the Appellant, participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent because the minutes of all the STA Board meetings are not available on the Respondent's website. He further claimed that the reply to the instant RTI Application was dated 12.07.2018 but the same was despatched on 10.08.2018, which was received by the Appellant on 13.08.2018.
Respondent is represented by Shri Mahesh Verma, PIO/Asst. Secretary-STA through audio conference. He submitted that as on the date of the RTI Application, minutes of all STA Board meetings held, are available in the public domain. He further submitted that the last STA Board meeting was held on Page 12 of 15 13.09.2019 and that the minutes of the same are also uploaded on their website.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the information provided by the Respondent is satisfactory.
Hence, no further scope of intervention is required in the instant matter.
(9) CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/633589 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 05.06.2018 seeking information on the following 7 points for the entire period of May, 2018 and separately from each of the Respondent's zonal offices:
1. I have learnt that the signature of the financier is not obtained on Form 20 in most cases. Furnish attested copies of all Form 20 received in May 2018 in which the vehicle is subject to hire-purchase or lease agreement or subject to hypothecation.
2. Furnish the number of hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreements entered into in the certificates of registration of motor vehicles during the stated period.
3. Furnish the number of hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreements deleted from certificates of registration of motor vehicles u/s 51(3) of the MVA, 1988.
4. Furnish the number of communications dispatched by registered post acknowledgement due in compliance of Section 51(1) of the MVA, 1988.
5. Furnish all proofs of dispatch of communication by registered post acknowledgment due in compliance of Section 51(10) of the MVA, 1988.
6. Furnish the number of instances of all autorickshaws, all forms of taxis, all forms of buses, all forms of cars/LMVs and all form of two-wheelers in which a. the new vehicle was registered b. duplicate certificate of registration was issued c. fitness certificate was renewed
7. For each of the above in the preceding paragraph, furnish all proofs of dispatch of communications to respective financiers in compliance of section 51(11) of the MVA, 1988 Please ensure that all documents furnished are duly certified, legible, clearly marked with Annexure numbers or referenced to relevant queries above, and sent to me in one bunch by the PIO who alone is responsible for furnishing information.
[Queries are verbatim] PIO/MLO, East Zone-II, Surajmal Vihar vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided point-wise information to the Appellant.
PIO/MLO, NWZ-I vide letter dated 15.06.2018 informed the Appellant on point nos. 1 and 6 of the RTI Application that the documents sought pertain to third parties are voluminous in quantity, hence cannot be provided; on point nos. 2 and 3 of the RTI Application, he stated that "no such information feasibility is at this zonal level" and on point nos. 4, 5 and 7 of the RTI Application, it was conveyed that no such record is available.
Page 13 of 15PIO/MLO/Registering Authority, (WZ-II) vide letter dated 18.06.2018 informed the Appellant that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is not available in their zonal office and that the information can be provided by the O/o. System Analyst/CPIO, Computer Branch (HQ) from main server if the RTI Act, 2005 permits.
PIO/MLO (SWZ-I), Palam Authority: Sector 10, Dwarka vide letter dated 21.06.2018 informed the Appellant that the instant RTI Application was received upon transfer from CAPIO/RTI, Transport Department and with regard to the information sought, he conveyed that no such information in compiled form is available in their zonal office.
PIO/MLO, North West Zone-II, Rohini vide letter dated 21.06.2018 informed the Appellant that the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act; on point nos. 2 and 3 of the RTI Application, he stated as: "This office does not have any such software application to provide you the requisite information. You may kindly contact the Senior System Analyst, Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to seek the specific information"; on point nos. 4, 5 and 7 of the RTI Application, it was conveyed that their office did not send any such communication to any Registered Owner of a vehicle and on point no. 6 of the RTI Application, he stated that the information sought is not clear.
PIO/MLO, East Zone-I, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I vide letter dated 26.06.2018 provided point-wise information to the Appellant.
PIO/MLO (NEZ), Loni Road, Shahdara vide letter dated 28.06.2018 provided point-wise information to the Appellant.
PIO/MLO-cum-Registering Authority, Vasant Vihar (SW-II) vide letter dated 28.06.2018 informed the Appellant that the information sought is voluminous in nature and not available in compiled form.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.07.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, representative of the Appellan,t participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he has received information from PIO, Surajmal Vihar; PIO, Wazirpur; PIO, Raja Garden; PIO, Rohini Zone; PIO, Dwarka; PIO, Mayur Vihar; PIO, Vasant Vihar and PIO, Loni Road, Shahdara. He further stated that he is not satisfied with the information received from each of the PIOs because the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to the compliance of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the reasons for denial of information by the various PIO are different.Page 14 of 15
Respondent is represented by Shri Mukesh Budhiraja, PIO/MLO Dwarka through audio conference. He submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to several zones and that the quantity of documents is voluminous. He further submitted that the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application pertaining to Form-20 is available both in physical and digital form and the compilation of the same will disproportionately divert their resources.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on records as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the information sought by the Appellant is voluminous in nature and the same requires collection/collation of data which will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and cannot be provided in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the nine Second Appeals are disposed off.
वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा)
Y. K. Sinha (वाई िस हा
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514
Page 15 of 15