Central Information Commission
Mr.Ram Dass Aliwadi vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 23 December, 2011
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001501
Dated: 23.12.2011
Name of Appellant : Shri Ram Dass Ailawadi
Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, Police Headquarters
Date of Hearing : 13.12.2011
ORDER
Shri Ram Dass Ailawadi, the appellant has filed this appeal dated 21.7.2011 before the Commission against Delhi Police Headquarters, New Delhi for not providing information to his RTI-request dated 21.1.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 13.12.2011. The appellant was present, whereas the respondents were represented by Shri Mangesh Kashyap, Addl. DCP, PHQ, Shri N.S. Ghuman, ACP, Shri B.S. Dahiya, ACP, PHQ, Shri Hem Chand, ACM, OD, Shri Mahavir Singh, ACP, HQ, Shri S.S. Malik, ACP, North, Shri B.P. Yadav, ACP, SW, Dr. G. Ram Gopal Naik, ACP, South District, Shri Sushil Kumar, Inspector, Shri Indraj Singh, Inspector, Shri Madan Lal, SI, OD, Shri Hem Chand, SI, SD, Shri Shiv Dutt Jaimini, SI, West, Shri Surinder Singh, ASI and Shri Man Mohan, ASI.
2. The appellant filed an RTI-request dated 21.1.2011 addressed to PIO, PHQ seeking information on three queries - "(1) Rank-wise police officials/personnel eligible for fixing bar light/siren above their vehicles of (a) yellow colour; (b) blue colour, (c) red colour, (d) red and blue both colours; (2) number and type of vehicle users served show cause notice(s) in violation of para-1 above during the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 in each district of Delhi; and (3) Certified copy of rules/ act under which punishment and type of punishment is given to police personnel/officials in violation of para 1 above". The PIO, PHQ vide letter No. XXIV/29/Spl/ID/Spl/ID-387/2011/4159/RTI Cell/PHQ dated 2.2.2011 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001501 informed the appellant that his RTI-application was transferred to the PIOs concerned of Delhi Police vide letter No.3609-21 dated 31.1.2011 for sending suitable reply directly to him. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal on 23.3.2011 before FAA. The FAA vide order No. XXIV/29/SPL/Appeals No. 28/2011/ID- 387/2011/17582 dated 25.5.2011 upheld the reply of PIO with the observation that the guidelines regarding use of coloured lights on motor vehicles as regulated under the Delhi Motor Vehicles Act, 1993 and Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 is easily available on the website of Delhi Government, Transport Department. Use of red and blue colour light and siren over police patrolling vehicles and PCR are used according to the rules and the PIO, may transfer his RTI application to Department of Transport, Delhi Government so that they may provide the latest information to the appellant.
3. The PIO, South District vide letter No. (217)/2503/RTI Cell/SD dated 28.2.2011 informed the appellant on Point No. 1 that the notification/circular issued in this regard from Govt. of India is in 10 pages for which he was requested to deposit Rs. 20/-. On Point No. 2 and 3 the PIO provided requisite information o the appellant. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal on 24.3.2011 before FAA. The FAA vide order No. ID-49&66/RTIA/11(SD)/154 dated 20.4.2011 upheld the reply of PIO.
4. The PIO, West District vide letter No. 1192 dated 25.2.2011 informed the appellant on Point No. 1 that the information relates to PHQ and on Point No. 2 & 3 the information sought relating to West District and may be treated as Nil. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal on 23.3.2011 before FAA. The FAA vide order No. 383-385 dated 21.4.2011 upheld the reply of PIO.
5. The PIO South-West District vide letter No. 1701 dated 1.3.2011 informed the appellant on Point No. 1 and 3 that the points do not specifically relate to South West District. However, he may obtain available copies of circular/orders issued by competent authorities in this regard after depositing Rs. 20/-. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal dated 24.3.2011 before FAA. The FAA vide order No. 145- 146 dated 11.5.2011 upheld the reply of PIO.
6. The PIO, North District vide letter No. 1874 dated 1.3.2011 informed the appellant on Point No. 1 that the information does not relate to North District; on Point No. 2 report 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001501 may be treated as Nil; and on Point No. 3 that it needs no comments in view of Point No.
2. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal dated 24.3.2011 before FAA. The FAA vide order No. 251 dated 19.4.2011 upheld the reply of PIO.
7. The PIO Central District vide letter No. 2512 dated 25.2.2011 informed the appellant on Point No. 1 that it relates to Traffic Police; on Point No. 2 - no show cause notice has been issued this regard in Central District and on Point No. 3 - that action would be taken as per the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal dated 24.3.2011 before FAA. The FAA vide order No. 4174 dated 21.4.2011 upheld the reply of PIO.
8. The PIO, East District vide letter No. 628 dated 1.3.2011 informed the appellant on Point No. 1 that the information sought does not relate to the District and on Point No. 2 and 3 - it may be treated as nil.
9. The PIO, North East District vide letter No. 745 dated 14.2.2011 informed the appellant on Point No. 1 that the Government vehicles are allotted/distributed by the P&L as per direction of PHQ after affixing necessary accessory/equipments. Hence it does not relate to this District. As regard affixing colours on private vehicles, nobody is authorized; on Point No. 2 and 3 the appellant was informed that it relate to the DCP, Traffic Unit, as and when any one breaks the rules i.e. reg. driving/vehicles number plate/use of colours, action is taken under the traffic rules. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the appellant preferred first appeal on23.3.2011 before FAA. The FAA vide order No.150-51 dated 25.4.2011 upheld the reply of PIO.
10. The PIO, New Delhi District vide letter No. 562 dated 24.2.2011 informed the appellant that all the points were related to Traffic Unit. Hence his RTI-application has been transferred to PIO, Traffic for further necessary action.
11. The PIO, Outer District vide letter No. 1041 dated 24.2.2011 informed the appellant on Point No. 1 that copies of the circular dated 10.3.2003 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic along with its enclosures could be obtained after paying Rs. 6/-. On Point No. 2 and 3 the appellant was informed that these points do not relate to Outer District. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the appellant preferred first appeal 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001501 on23.3.2011 before FAA. The FAA vide order No.288/Appeal/RTI/Outer District dated 15.4.2011 upheld the reply of PIO.
12. Aggrieved by non-receipt of information from PIO, North West District, the appellant preferred first-appeal before FAA, North West District. The FAA vide order No. 280 dated 19.5.2011 observed that the PIO vide letter No. ID-204/11/861/RTI Cell/NWD dated 1.3.2011 has provided requisite information to the appellant and upheld the reply of PIO.
13. The PIO, South East District vide letter No. 1933 dated 1.3.2011 informed the appellant on Point No. 1 and 3 that these points do not relate to South East District and information on Point No. 2 may be treated as nil. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the appellant preferred first appeal on 23.3.2011 before FAA. The FAA vide order No.258- 260/RTI/A.SEC/Addl.CP/SED dated 19.4.2011 upheld the reply of PIO.
14. The PIO, Delhi Police, Vigilance vide letter No. ID/233/11)/670 dated 10.2.2011 informed the appellant that the information sought by the appellant was not available. However, in this regard appellant's RTI application has already been sent to the concerned PIOs by PIO, PHQ. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the appellant preferred first appeal on 23.3.2011 before FAA. The FAA vide order No.1733/RTI/Vig dated 6.4.2011 upheld the reply of PIO. However, his appeal was transferred to PIO, PHQ.
15. During the hearing the respondent submitted that all concerned PIOs and FAA of Delhi Police have suitably provided suitable information to the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic (HQ), Delhi vide letter No. F.76/RTI/Act/11/1224/RTI Cell/Tr dated 22.2.2011 provided point-wise information to the appellant. The appellant stated that he has not received reply of PIO, Traffic (HQ).
16. Having heard the respondent, the Commission observes that requisite information permissible under the RTI Act and as per available records has been provided to the appellant by respondent. However, the PIO, Traffic is directed to again send his reply dated 22.2.2011 to the appellant within one week of the receipt of this order.
The matter is accordingly disposed of with the above directions.
5 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001501(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Ram Dass Ailawadi, M/s. Crown Photostat (Regd), Typing Institute, No. 130, Mall Road, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009.
The Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police & PIO, Delhi Police, Police Headquarters, MSO Building, 8th Floor, IP Estate, New Delhi.
The Joint Commissioner of Police & FAA, Delhi Police, Police Headquarters, MSO Building, 8th Floor, IP Estate, New Delhi.
The Dy. Commissioner of Police & PIO, Delhi Police, Traffic (HQ), 1st Floor, PS R.K. Puram, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.