Central Information Commission
Shri Yogesh Malhotra vs Transport Department Delhi on 14 November, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/TDDEL/A/2023/132069
SHRI YOGESH MALHOTRA .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Transport Department, GNCTD,
Auto Rikshaw & Taxi Unit, Burari,
Delhi - 110084 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.11.2024
Date of Decision : 13.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 20.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.03.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"Name of other family members of Shri Raj Kumar Bhola are: Smt. Rajni, W/o Shri Raj Kumar Bhola, Shri Shiv Bhola, S/o Shri Raj Kumar Bhola Shri Rajinder Bhola, S/o Shri Raj Kumar Bhola. Ms. Deepa Bhola, daughter of Shri Raj Kumar Bhola.
1. As per Records, how many TSR Permit and valid Badges were issued to the above- mentioned persons in the past and in present. Kindly provide the following details:-
Date, Month & Year of applying TSR Permit(s) & badge(s) by above named.
Date, Month & Year of issue of TSR Permit(s) & badges to the above named.
Validity (Date, Month & Year) of the TSR Permit(s) & badges issued to the above named.
Kindly provide TSR Permit numbers & badges number issued to above named.
Documents deposited by above named at the time of applying for TSR Permit(s) & badges.
2. Whether the above named at the time of applying for TSR Permit & badges deposited valid proof of identity and proof of residence? Kindly clarify.
3. If the answer Q.No.3 is yes, kindly provide following:-
Copy of proof of identity and proof of residence deposited by above named at the time of applying for TSR Permit(s) & badges.
4. Whether the official(s) of Ministry of Transport Office verified the documents (Proof of identity and proof of residence) deposited by above named before issuing TSR Permit(s) & badges to them? Kindly clarify.
5. If the official(s) of Ministry of Transport Office verified the documents (Proof of identity and proof of residence) before issuing TSR Permit(s) & badges to the above named then kindly provide name and designation of the officer(s) who have verified the documents and issued TSR Permit(s) & badges to the above named.
6. If the official(s) of Ministry of Transport Office not verified the documents (Proof of identity and proof of residence) before issuing TSR Permit(s) & badges to the above named then kindly provide name and designation of the officer(s) who have issued TSR Permit(s) & badges to the above named without verification of documents.
7. If it found during enquiry or at any stage that the above named as well as their family members deposited forged documents to the Ministry of Transport Office for TSR Permit(s) & badges, then what is the punishment / penalty to the above named as well as their family Page 2 of 6 members for deposited forged documents at the time of taking / applying TSR Permit(s) & badges. Kindly clarify.
8. Whether the official(s) of Ministry of Transport Office verified from the neighbours before issued TSR Permit(s) & badges to the above named? Kindly clarify."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.04.2023 stating as under:
"It is to inform you that similar and identical RTI was earlier mooted by you and you had filed a second appeal before the Hon'ble CIC and in accordance to the compliance of the order of Hon'ble CIC, the compliance report dated 18.03.2023 has been sent to Hon'ble CIC and you. However, copy of the earlier information sent to you with regard to your earlier RTI in the similar matter is enclosed herewith for your perusal, hence, the information in the above said RTI is not required to provide.
This is in compliance to orders by Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner in Second Appeal bearing number CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/130034-UM on the subject cited above. In this connection, you are hereby informed that as regard to question number 1, the information cannot be provided as being ambiguous and not clear under the RTI Act, 2005, a specific information can be sought. In other words the information you have sought is based on surmises and hence erroneous under the definition of the information as envisaged and stipulate in RTI Act 2005. Moreover, the information sought pertains to 3rd party which cannot be provided under section 8(1)(1) RTI Act 2005. Therefore information regard to subsequent questions which are inter- connected with the information sought with question no.1 become automatically not to be answered."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.04.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Absent.Page 3 of 6
Both the parties did not participate in the hearing despite service of hearing notice.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 16.10.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"I, Yogesh Malhotra, S/o Shri C.P. Malhotra, R/o A-285, Double Storey, Kalkaji, New Delhi, Mobile Number 9810473991/9910416222 want to file Written Submission with Annexures against above mentioned Appeal.
I have filed RTI dated 20.03.2023 with The Public Information Officer, Transport Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, (ARU/TAXI UNIT), BURARI, DELHI-110084 PIO, DTO (ARU/TU) failed to provide pointwise complete and correct information as desired by me in my above mentioned RTI application dated 20.03.2023. PIO while giving the reference of my earlier RTI stated that as regard to Q.No.1, the information cannot be provided as being ambiguous and not clear under the RTI Act 2005, a specific information can be sought. Further stated that information you have sought is based on surmises and hence erroneous under the definition of information as envisaged and stipulated in RTI Act 2005. Further stated that information sought pertains to 3rd Party which cannot be provided under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. My submission is plea/view taken by PIO is erroneous and against the provision of RTI Act.
As far as questions raised by PIO that in my earlier RTI Application dated 13.04.2022 questions are not clear and further advise me a specific information can be sought. As directed by PIO, I have filed another RTI dated 20.03.2023 with Specific & clear Questions.
Regarding information sought pertains to 3rd Party and have no Public Interest. In this regard, I would like to draw the kind attention of PIO that as mentioned in my earlier RTI dated 13.04.2022 that Tilak Raj Bhola, Raj Kr Bhola as well as their family members after encroachment on Government Vacant land constructed their houses. The said persons have no valid proof of ownership in respect of Property bearing No. A-287, Double Storey, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 but lot of TSR Permit & Valid Badges either in their own names or in the name of their family members as mentioned in my RTI Application dated 20.03.2023 It is pertinent to mention here that as on date, actual owner of A-287, Double Storey, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 is Naresh Kumar, S/o Late Shri Kunan Lal. Naresh Kumar also lodged complaint with SHO, PS Kalkaji and MCD with signature regarding misuse of his quarter no. i.e. A-287, Double Storey, Kalkaji, New Delhi by Raj Kr Bhola, Tilak Raj Bhola and their family members. (copy of complaints lodged by Naresh Kumar to SHO & MCD dated 15.02.2017 are enclosed for ready reference as Annexure-1) RTI reply received from Office of District Social Welfare Officer (South) vide letter no. F. No. 472/DSWO (S)/RTI/2015-16/1443 dated 20.06.2017 stated that Tilak Raj Bhola getting his Old Age Pension at the address A-383, Double Storey, Kalkaji, New Delhi-Page 4 of 6
110019 instead of address A-287, Backside, Double Storey, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Copy of RTI reply dated 20.06.2017 is enclosed for ready reference as Annexure-II. RTI reply dated 19.03.2014 received from DEMS Department of Central Zone vide letter no. 1791/AC/RTI/CNZ/2012 against my father RTI application no: 18415 dated
02.01.2014, clearly written that copy of challan vide challan nos. 403329, 403331, 403332 & 403330 handed over to Sonia, Tilak Raj Bhola, Balram & Raj Kumar Bhola, real brother of Tilak Raj Bhola (all are residents of A-287, front & back side), as they all after encroachment on the vacant Government land constructed their houses (copy of RTI reply dated 19.03.2014 is enclosed for ready reference as Annexure-III). As far as hearing conducted in the Hon'ble CIC against my second appeal bearing no. CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/130034-UM, the said hearing is conducted on 22.02.2023 without my presence, knowledge and without receiving any hearing Notice from Hon'ble CIC. I was surprised when I received copy of decision of Hon'ble Commissioner dated 27.02.2023 by Speed Post stated that Appellant is not present to contest the written submission of the Respondent.
The name and address of FAA was mentioned in the RTI Reply by PIO is "in case not satisfied with the reply of PIO within 30 days is as under:
The First Appellate Authority, Dy. Commissioner (ARU/TU), Transport Department, GNCTD 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi-110054"
Appeal dated 20.04.2023 filed with FAA by Speed Post vide Speed Post receipt no. ED270194697IN on the above-mentioned address which was provided by PIO in case not satisfied with the reply of PIO The said letter returned with envelop & remarks stated that ISS PATEY PER DC ARU/TU NAHI BEDTHA (Copy of envelop is enclosed for ready reference as Annexure-IV) instead of transferring the said RTI Appeal under section 6(3) to other FAA to which the subject matter is more closely connected. In nutshell, it is clear from the above mentioned RTI & RTI Appeal that neither PIO nor FAA ready to provide the information as desired by me in my RTI application either on one pretext or another. The reason best known to them. PRAYER
1. In the interest of justice, request is to kindly direct PIO to provide pointwise complete and correct information as desired by me in my above mentioned RTI Application dated 20.03.2023 alongwith annexures with cost u/s 20(1) of RTI Act.
2. Award compensation to me u/s 19(8)(b) of RTI Act 2005."
A written submission has been received from the office of DTO (ARU/TA), vide letter dated 28.10.2024, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"This is with reference to the above captioned subject whereby a notice of hearing, i.e. CIC/TDDEL/C/2023/132069 dated 10.10.2024 for appeal/complaint tendered by Page 5 of 6 Sh. Yogesh Malhotra with respect to clause 4 of the said notice for tendering the submission.
In order to avail an opportunity as granted under Clause 4, it has been submitted that in the similar matter the applicant had filed second appeal before the Hon'ble CIC and accordingly Hon'ble CIC passed the order vide CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/130034-UN and the compliance of the same was made by this office by replying to the applicant on dated 18.03.2024 copy of which has already been enclosed by the applicant. Subsequently, against the said RTI in question, the reply was furnished on 12.04.2023 apprising the applicant that the reply had already been given and he is habitual of seeking the information which factually cannot be provided. The Hon'ble CIC had already heard and endorsed the point of view of the department.
In view of totality of the facts as explained herein above, this office stand on its earlier reply dated 12.04.2023 in response to RTI bearing ID No. 248/2023. It is requested the same may be taken on record."
Decision:
At the very outset, the Commission observes that the subject matter of the instant RTI Application under reference has already been adjudicated in Second Appeal No. CIC/TDDEL/A/2022/130034, by another bench of the Commission vide order dated 27.02.2023 and in compliance with the previous order, the Respondent has provided the information to the Appellant vide letter dated 18.03.2024. Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal is barred by principles of res judicata.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)