Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ravinder Yadav vs Delhi Police on 23 October, 2020

                                 के ीय सूचना आयोग
                        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/2019/655808

Shri Ravinder Yadav                                         ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                VERSUS/बनाम

The PIO,                                              ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
PIO/DCP, Traffic - HQ,
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg,
New Delhi - 110012

The PIO,
Delhi Traffic Police
PS Subhash Nagar, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi - 110027

The PIO,
Delhi Traffic Police, SWD,
Dwarka, Delhi - 110075

The PIO,
Delhi Traffic Police,
Western Range, Ground Floor,
Delhi Police Office Complex,
C Block, Janakpuri, Delhi 110058

Date of Hearing                      :   22.10.2020
Date of Decision                     :   23.10.2020
Information Commissioner            :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on             :   23.08.2019
PIO replied on                       :   18.09.2019/ 24.09.2019
First Appeal filed on                :   23.09.2019
First Appellate Order on             :   21.10.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint dated            :   03.11.2019
Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.08.2019 seeking information on 02 points:

(Queries reproduced verbatim) The DCP/PIO, Delhi Traffic Police-HQvide letter dated 18.09.2019 informed the appellant that the requisite information cannot be provided, as their office does not maintain the records of challans as per the registration number of the vehicle. Thereafter the ADCP/PIO, Western Range, Delhi Traffic Police vide letter dated 24.09.2019 allowed inspection of records to the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2019.The FAA vide order dated 21.10.2019 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the replies of PIOs of Traffic-HQ and Traffic-WR.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He denied receipt of any information from the PIO/ FAA.

The Respondent is represented by Shri Pradeep Kumar, ACP and APIO, HQ and Shri Surender Yadav, SI- Traffic HQ through audio conference.Shri Kumar referred to the reply of the Western Range dated 24.09.2019 and stated that since the information sought was large and voluminous, inspection of records was offered to the Appellant which was not availed off by him. While informing the Commission that Shri Mandeep Singh Randhawa is the PIO and ACP, Western Range, the Respondent stated that in case the Commission allowed inspection of records to the Appellant, they will convey the same to Shri Randhawa for compliance of the order. The Appellant however refused to avail of the opportunity to inspect the records and prayed that documents be provided to him by post irrespective of the voluminous nature of information.

Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observed that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 is provided by the Respondent.

In this context, the Commission referred to the following observation in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 which is self explanatory:

"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."

Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:

"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, thedemand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"

Thus, in the light of the above observation, the CommissiondirectsShri Mandeep Singh Randhawa PIO and ACP (Traffic), Western Range to facilitate inspection of records sought in the RTI application to the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time. A compliance report with respect to the aforementioned direction be furnished to the Commission by 15.12.2020.

With the aforementioned direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4