Central Information Commission
Gopal vs Delhi Police on 5 April, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122033
Shri Gopal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police (HQ)
PIO
Asst. Commissioner of Police Traffic(HQ)
PIO
Delhi Police
Rohini Distt.
PIO
DCP, Delhi Polic,
NW Distt.
Date of Hearing : 01.04.2021
Date of Decision : 05.04.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.01.2020
PIO replied on : 09.03.2020, 04.03.2020, 03.03.2020,
11.03.2020, 09.03.2020, 09.03.2020,
06.03.2020, 06.03.2020, 07.03.2020,
03.03.2020, 04.03.2020, 01.03.2020,
04.03.2020, 03.03.2020, 04.03.2020,
20.02.2020, 26.02.2020, 16.03.2020
& 29.01.2020
First Appeal filed on : 19.06.2020
First Appellate Order on : 17.07.2020, 22.07.2020, 27.07.2020,
15.07.2020, 03.08.2020, 07.03.2020,
21.07.2020, 28.07.2020, 25.07.2020,
01.08.2020, 27.07.2020, 24.07.2020,
&19.05.2020
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 06.08.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
Page 1 of 3The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.01.2020 seeking information regarding a complaint dated 08.01.2020 in respect of illegal plying of e- Rickshaws, Gramin Seva, Auto Rickshaws and School Vans in Delhi and reason as to why action has not been taken against violators for contempt of Order of Delhi High Court.
The PIO/ACP, Traffic (HQ), Delhi vide letter dated 11.02.2020 transferred the RTI application to the PIOs, Traffic Police, East Circle, New Delhi Circle, Outer Circle, West Circle, South Circle &Centre Circle. Subsequently, various CPIOs vide letters dated 09.03.2020, 04.03.2020, 03.03.2020, 11.03.2020, 09.03.2020, 09.03.2020, 06.03.2020, 06.03.2020, 07.03.2020, 03.03.2020, 04.03.2020, 01.03.2020, 04.03.2020, 03.03.2020, 04.03.2020, 20.02.2020, 26.02.2020, 16.03.2020 & 29.01.2020 provided replies to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the responses received from the CPIOs, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2020. The FAAs vide orders dated 17.07.2020, 22.07.2020, 27.07.2020, 15.07.2020, 03.08.2020, 07.03.2020, 21.07.2020, 28.07.2020, 25.07.2020, 01.08.2020, 27.07.2020, 24.07.2020 & 19.05.2020 adjudicated the First Appeal.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions have been received from PIO cum Addl CP (Traffic) vide letter dated 25.03.2021 and PIO cum Addl DCP, South District vide letter dated 26.03.2021 and the same have been taken on record.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that no information was received by him in the instant matters and the first appeal was also not heard.
The Respondent, represented by Shri Deepak Bharadwaj, SI, Shri Mukesh Kumar, Inspector, Shri Sandeep Sharma, CT, RTI Cell, South, Smt Shamma Devi, WSI, Traffic HQ, Shri Ramesh Chandra Meena, ACP (PG), Rohini District, Smt Kamal Duggar, Inspector, RTI Cell, Rohini District, Shri Ravindra Kumar Sharma, ACP and APIO, PHQ, Shri Rajesh Kumar, SI, RTI Cell, PHQ and Shri Harvinder Singh, HC, Appeal Cell, North West District, participated in the hearing through video conference.
Smt Shamma Devi stated that on 27.07.2020, the Southern Traffic Range had informed the Appellant that his complaint will be examined. Thereafter on 10.08.2020, an inquiry report was prepared which was provided to the Appellant and a meeting was also held with the representatives of E-Rickshaw Drivers Page 2 of 3 Association where the Appellant was also present. A copy of the minutes of the meeting were also produced before the Commission during the hearing. Hence, she stated that appropriate action was taken from time to time in the matter.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that adequate information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Commission however notes that the Appellant has filed multiple Second Appeals essentially relating to the same issue regarding banning illegal e-rickshaws in Delhi and some of the matters have already been heard and decided vide CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/174748 dated 11.082.020 and CIC/DTCOR/A/2018/163460 dated 14.08.2020. Essentially the issues raised by the Appellant relate to redressal of his personal grievance which should be resolved at an appropriate forum. Thus, the Commission directs the Appellant to desist from filing multiple Second Appeals/ Complaints on similar issues. Any Second Appeals/ Complaints pending before the Commission or filed subsequently by the Appellant on similar issues may be decided on merits without listing.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3