Central Information Commission
Mrpawan Kumar Verma vs Gnctd on 12 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2014/001880
CIC/SA/A/2014/001881
CIC/SA/A/2014/001882
CIC/SA/A/2014/001883
CIC/SA/A/2014/001918
Pawan Kumar Verma vs. Transport Department, GNCTD
Important Dates and time taken:
CIC/SA/A/2014/001880
RTI:1362014 FA: 16714/5814(20) Hearing:8.5.2015
SA: 16122014 Disposed of Decision: 12052015
CIC/SA/A/2014/001881
RTI:1772014 FA: 2082014 Hearing:8.5.2015
SA: 16122014 Show cause & directions Decision: 12052015
CIC/SA/A/2014/001882
RTI:1362014 FA: 16714/5914(51) Hearing:8.5.2015
SA: 16122014 Show cause & directions Decision: 12052015
CIC/SA/A/2014/001883
RTI:13614/13814(61) FA: 16714/5914(51) Hearing:8.5.2015
SA: 16122014 Disposed of with directions Decision: 12052015
CIC/SA/A/2014/001880, 1881, 1882, 1883 & 1918 Page 1
CIC/SA/A/2014/001918
RTI: 1362014 FA: 16714/5914(51) Hearing:8.5.2015
SA: 16122014 Show cause & directions Decision: 12052015
Parties Present:
The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by N.S.Yadav,
MLO, Prawin Desai, MLO, R.K.Dhingra, ADO(TPT), Kuldeep Singh, LDC. The
appellant has filed the above 5(five) appeals against the same Public Authority and
hence they are taken up together for hearing today.
FACTS:
CIC/SA/A/2014/001880
2. Appellant through his RTI application had sought action taken report on the Complaints dated 03.01.2012 & 12.03.2012 regarding Driver Prateek Institute Research and on the subject of revoking administrative Order of Driver Prateek Institute Research. Having received no reply within the prescribed period, the appellant had filed First Appeal. FAA by his Order dated 05.09.2014 directed the PIO to reply to the RTI application within 10 days. Claiming non furnishing of information within the prescribed period, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal.
CIC/SA/A/2014/001881
3. Appellant through his RTI application had sought action taken report on his Complaint dated 24.03.2014 regarding encouragement of touts by Mr Tyagi, Testing Officer of North Zonal Office, Mall road. Having received no information within the prescribed period, the appellant had filed First Appeal on 20.08.2014. FAA by his Order dated 05.11.2014 directed the PIO to give proper reply under his signature and if the reply is filed, the appellant is to go CIC/SA/A/2014/001880, 1881, 1882, 1883 & 1918 Page 2 through and further come forward if not satisfied. Claiming noncompliance of FAA Order, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal. CIC/SA/A/2014/001882
4. Appellant through his RTI application had sought action taken report on the complaint dated 06.05.2014 regarding Mr Virender Singh. Having received no information within the prescribed period, the appellant thereafter filed First Appeal on 16.07.2014. FAA by his Order dated 05.09.2014 had directed the PIO/MLO(Wazipur) to provide the copy of the reply to PIO within 10 days. Claiming noncompliance of FAA Order, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal.
CIC/SA/A/2014/001883
5. Appellant through his RTI application had sought action taken report on his complaint dated 21.05.2014 regarding corrupt lobby of the transport department. Having received no information within the prescribed period, the appellant filed First Appeal. PIO Vide his letter dated 13.08.2014 replied that the matter is sub judice. FAA by his Order dated 05.09.2014 has upheld the information furnished by the PIO. Claiming nonfurnishing of information as per the RTI application, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal. CIC/SA/A/2014/001918
6. Appellant through his RTI application had sought action taken report or findings on the complaint dated 11.03.2014 regarding Pawan Sut MDTS & Driver Prateek Institute Research. Having received no information within the prescribed period, the appellant filed First Appeal on 16.07.2014. FAA by his Order dated 05.09.2014 directed the PIO/MLO, Wazipur to furnish reply within 10 days and also file reply before him concerning the delay in supplying the information. Claiming nonfurnishing of information even after Order of FAA, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal.
DECISION:
CIC/SA/A/2014/001880, 1881, 1882, 1883 & 1918 Page 3 7. Both the parties made their submissions. CIC/SA/A/2014/001880
8. The appellant submitted that he had lodged a complaint against Driver Prateek Institute Research who had stolen his institute papers and got the benefit from the department. The action taken on his complaint has not been informed by the respondent authority. In response to this, the respondent authority submitted that they had already taken action on the complaint and only yesterday the relevant file was received from the Inquiry officer who recommended filing of FIR against the said institute, which the respondent authority is going to file. As the relevant information has been given by the respondent authority, the Commission disposes of the appeal in this case.
CIC/SA/A/2014/001881
9. The appellant submitted that he had made a complaint against the Testing Officer Mr. Tyagi who was encouraging the touts for securing the driving licence. But so far he had not received the information. In response to this, the respondent authority submitted that they have reported this matter to the SHO, Timarpur on 12102014 and the SHO has posted the beat officers who are making efforts to remove the touts. But the appellant specifically referred to one tout namely Ravi Kumar and action taken on him. The Commission, therefore, directs the PIO to furnish the action taken report to the appellant, on Ravi Kumar who is acting as tout within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the PIO to show cause why penalty cannot be imposed for noncompliance of FAA order dated 2082014 within the prescribed period. His explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. The Commission orders accordingly in this appeal.
CIC/SA/A/2014/001882 CIC/SA/A/2014/001880, 1881, 1882, 1883 & 1918 Page 4
11. The appellant submitted that he is seeking information on his complaint dated 652014 against the Pawan Sut Driving Institute, whose owner Mr. Nirmal Singh was dead and yet 9 vehicles owned by him were illegally transferred to one Mr. Virender Singh after the death of Nirmal Singh. The appellant questioned how the respondent authority can transfer a dead man's vehicles to third party, when the wife of Nirmal Singh was the deemed owner of the vehicles. In response to this the respondent authority submitted that since the death of Nirmal Singh, the files concerning the 9 vehicles, were kept in safe custody. He is not aware how this transfer took place. Having heard the submissions from both the parties, and having perused the record, the Commission directs the PIO [S.P.Singh, MLO] to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him for not complying with the FAA order dated 1672014. The Commission further directs the respondent authority to provide complete information to the appellant regarding this issue and report to the Commission whether any investigation was done into this illegal transfer, who is responsible for it and what action is proposed to be taken against the culprits, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
12. The Commission orders accordingly in this case.
CIC/SA/A/2014/001883
13. The appellant submitted that one vehicle No.DBH 0009 of a dead man who had expired, was transferred to another man within 24 hours on 2152014 flouting all the rules. As per rules, the vehicle of a dead man with same registration number will be transferred after 3 years from the date of proposal. Therefore, the appellant alleged lot of corruption lobby existing in the department. In response to this allegation, the PIO submitted that this case is presently under investigation by the CBI to whom all the related files were under submissions. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to obtain the latest status of the inquiry from the CBI and inform the same to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal in this case, is disposed of accordingly.
CIC/SA/A/2014/001918 CIC/SA/A/2014/001880, 1881, 1882, 1883 & 1918 Page 5
14. The appellant submitted that one Nirmal Singh who is owning a training institute by name, Pawan Sut Motor Driving School had expired and most of the MLOs had attended his funeral, he being the soninlaw of one MLO by name D.P.Singh. After his death his signature was forged for renewing his institute under form No.11, by the respondent authority. Even today, that institute stands on the name of the dead man, Nirmal Singh. The PIO, on the other hand, did not make any convincing submissions in reply to this allegation. The Commission, therefore, issues Show Cause Notice to the PIO for not complying with the FAA order dated 592014 in this case, within the prescribed period. His explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the respondent authority to provide information to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
15. The Commission orders accordingly in this case.
(M Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of parties
1. The PIO under the RTI Act, Govt. of Delhi Department of Transport, Motor Licencing Officer, Mall Road, Zonal (NZ), Delhi110054 CIC/SA/A/2014/001880, 1881, 1882, 1883 & 1918 Page 6
2. The PIO under the RTI Act, Govt. of Delhi Department of Transport, 5/9Under Hill Road Delhi110054
3. Shri Pawan Kumar Verma M4/27, Model TownII, Opp: Park, Third Floor Delhi110009 CIC/SA/A/2014/001880, 1881, 1882, 1883 & 1918 Page 7