Central Information Commission
Rakesh Agarwal vs Transport Department Delhi on 20 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/TDDEL/C/2023/604726
Rakesh Agarwal ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Commissioner, Transport
Transport Department
5/9 Underhill Road
Delhi - 110054 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.06.2024
Date of Decision : 19.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 17-12-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25-01-2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1. The Total number of autorickshaws registered in Delhi series-wise i.e. S, T, U, V, and so on.
2. No. of autorickshaws for which GPS signals are being received in the control room.
3. Total no. of taxis registered in Delhi type-wise i.e. city taxis, black and yellow taxis, tourist taxis, etc.
4. No. of taxis for which GPS signals are being received in the control room.
5. Please provide details of the operation of the panic button mechanism.
6. On pressing the panic button, does the alert go to Delhi police?
7. Is it mandatory to have a panic button in autorickshaws and city taxis?"
The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 13.02.2024:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Man Mohan, System Analyst (IT) and Shri Sudist Ranjan, Junior Assistant & LDC (on behalf of Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO), attended the hearing.
The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 16.02.2024:
"Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. Since Shri Man Mohan, System Analyst (IT), has provided adequate reply to the Complainant on point No. 4 of the RTI Application based on available records, no mala fide can be attributed against their department.2
The Commission observes that no reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Complainant from the office of Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO. Further Shri Sudist Ranjan, Junior Assistant, appearing on behalf of the PIO, has come before the Commission completely unprepared and unaware of the facts of the instant case, which raises apprehension that information has deliberately not been given to the Complainant with a mala fide intent.
The Commission is anguished to note that Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO, has sent an official of the rank equivalent to a LDC (lower most rung in the ministerial staff below which only Group-D employees are left), to plead the matter before the bench and that too without any authorization letter and without explaining any reason for his absence. This approach violates the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and accordingly the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO, and he is admonished for the same besides being called to show cause. The act of the Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO, tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission. In view of the above, inaction on his part is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, to Shri Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO, for neither providing any reply qua the instant RTI Application to the Complainant nor participating in the instant hearing in person.
A copy of this order is marked to the FAA who shall ensure that a copy of this order is received by the erring PIO. The FAA is further directed to ensure that under all circumstances, written submissions of the erring PIO should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which ex-parte decision shall be taken. "
Relevant Facts emerging during Show-Cause Hearing on 10.06.2024 Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Yogesh Jain, Dy. Commissioner & FAA and Shri M Johnson, DTO & PIO present in person.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.3
The written explanation dated 18.03.2024 of Shri Yogesh Jain, FAA & Dy. Commissioner is taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"It is most respectfully submitted that an order was passed by Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 16-02-2024 in the above stated matter.
As per the order a Show-cause notice has been issued "as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him U/s 20(1) & 20(2) of the RTI Act to Sh. Yogesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner & PIO, for neither providing any reply qua the instant RTI application to the complainant nor participating in the instant hearing in person". In this regard it is to submit that the undersigned is working as Deputy Commissioner in Transport Department and is not the PIO. The undersigned is the First Appellant Authority for Auto-rickshaw Unit of Transport Department. The instant RTI application registration no. DOPTD/R/2022/60800 dated 17-12-2022 was forwarded by the Nodal Officer of the Transport Department to PIO/MLO, Auto-Rickshaw Unit on 19-12- 2022. Since, the said RTI application was not pertained to Auto-Rickshaw Unit and the same was transferred U/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to System Analyst/PIO, Computer Branch and PIO, Operations to provide the requisite information on 23-12-2022 under intimation to the applicant. Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal, applicant, has also not filed any appeal to the undersigned being the First Appellant Authority.
Further it is also pertinent to mention that the undersigned is deputed as ARO in Election office and was not aware about the Second appeal with Hon'ble CIC on dated 13- 02-2024. The instant case was dealt by PIO/MLO, Auto-Rickshaw Unit and he sent the Junior Assistant to attend on his behalf before the Hon'ble Bench."
As agreed during the hearing, the Respondent has uploaded revised point-wise reply/information dated 11.06.2024 and a copy was sent to the Complainant. The contents of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"With reference to your RTI application under Right to Information Act, 2005 the reply of this office is resubmitted as under:
Point 1. 94159 Point 2. Not pertain to this office, it is may be pertain to DIMTS.
Point 3. City Taxi-26464 Economy Radio Taxi-79 Local Taxi-4769 4 Radio Taxi-41 Tourist Taxi-3774 Tourist Taxi (Deluxe)-28742 Above information available in vahan database as on 11.06.2024 Point 4 Not pertain to this office, it is may be pertain to DIMTS, Point 5 Not pertain to this office, it is may be pertain to DIMTS.
Point 6 Not pertain to this office, it is may be pertain to DIMTS.
Point 7 Not pertain to this office, it is may be pertain to DIMTS."
Upon being queried by the Commission, Shri Yogesh Jain stated that Shri Sanjay Ailwaidhi, DC (Operations) was the then PIO at the relevant time.
Decision:
Perusal of the documents submitted by the Noticee- Shri Yogesh Jain explained that on the last date i.e. 13.02.2024, he was unable to attend the hearing because he is deputed as ARO in Election office and was not aware about the Complaint listed with Hon'ble CIC on dated 13.02.2024. The instant case was dealt by PIO/MLO, Auto-Rickshaw Unit and he sent the Junior Assistant to attend on his behalf before the Hon'ble Bench. A fresh reply to the RTI has been sent to the Complainant dated 11.06.2024.
In view of the above discussion, the Commission accepts the reply/explanation of the Noticee. However, the Commission directs Shri Yogesh Jain and the then PIO Shri Sanjay Ailwadhi, DC (Operations) to be cautious in future and ensure their presence on future date of hearings to avoid attracting penal action.
Before parting with the case at hand, the Commission wishes to remark that such pertinent facts, as submitted during Show Cause proceedings by the Respondent, should be put on record before the Commission during the first date of hearing itself in order to reduce the time, energy and efforts in adjudication on such matters.5
Shri Yogesh Jain is directed to serve a copy of this order to Shri Sanjay Ailwadhi.
The show cause notice is hereby dropped, and the matter stands disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy to:
First Appellate Authority, Transport Department, 5/9, Underhill Road, Delhi - 110054 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)