CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00871 dated 19-8-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Rakesh Agarwal
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) Traffic (Hq.)
FACTS
By an application of 20-4-07 Shri Rakesh Agarwal asked the Addl.
Commissioner of Police (Traffic) for the following information:
“1. Please provide me the number of autorickshaws that
have been seized since 1.8.2004 including those that
were detained as a result of suspension of permits under
section 86 of the MV Act 1988.
2. Was for OSS issued for each seized auto rickshaw.
3. In all cases in which form OSS was not issued, please
provide the name and designation of the senior most
officers in the team that seized the vehicle.
4. For each auto rickshaw that was seized since 1.8.2004,
please provide a copy of the corresponding challan/form
OSS.
Section 86 of MV Act 1988
5. Under section 86 of the MV Act you have the right, under
certain conditions to suspend the permit bu8t not to
detain the vehicle. However, vehicles are routinely
detained under this section. Kindly provide the legal
basis for such action.
6. A notice is issued under this section to the permit holder
before the permit is actually suspended. Please provide
copies of all such notices issued in respect of auto
rickshaws since 1.1.2007.
7. How many such notices have been issued since 1.1.2007?
8. In how many cases was permit suspended?
9. A permit holder is given the reasons in writing for the
action taken by you. Please provide copies of all
documents that contain these reasons in all cases where
permits were suspended since 1.1.2007.
1
10. I enclose the copy of a challan issued to an auto rickshaw
driver. When the driver went to the police station to get
his vehicle released after filing Superdari in the Court, his
RC was seized till the disposal of the challan. Please
provide the legal basis for this action.
SECTION 207 OF MV ACT 1988
11. From a reading of section 207, it is clear that a vehicle
can be impounded only when it is being driven without a
proper licence, registration certificate or permit, or when
the conditions of the permit are violated relating to the
route, area of purpose. However, I have come across
100s of instances where vehicles have been seized on
the filmiest of pretexts, thus contravening the provisions
made in this section. The enclosed challan is a case in
point in which the driver has been charged with
overcharging.
Please separately provide copies of all challans/ form OSS in
respect of auto rickshaws seizures issued since 1.1.2007 which
have not specifically been issued as a consequence of
contravention of section 3 or section 4 or section 39 or without
the permit required under section 66 (1) or in contravention of
permit conditions relating to route, area or purpose.
SECTION 206 OF MV ACT 1988
12. Section 206 (2) empowers you to seize a person’s driving
licence only. However, your officers are routinely found
to be seizing other documents as well. Please provide
the legal basis for such action.
13. This section also states that an officer can only seize a
licence “if he has reason to believe that the driver may
abscond or otherwise avoid the service of summons”.
However, it is seen that the licences and/ or other
documents are routinely seized. In fact, on 27th October.
I was issued a challan at Vijay Path and my licence was
seized. I successfully contested the charge and now plan
to file a civil case against the concerned officer and/ or
your department on several counts upon receiving a
certified copy of the Order. Please provide legal basis for
seizing documents as a matter of routine rather than as
exception, with special reference to my own case
(Challan no. 653471 issued at Vijay Path on 27.10.06, car
no. DL7C-E6256).
PUNCHING OF LICENCE
2
14. When an accused demands a challan to appear in a court
instead of admitting guilt and payment the compounding
fee on the spot, it is clear that he should be treated as
innocent until proven guilty. However, in 100s of cases,
in their overzealousness, like in the case of challan no.
1203/063129 (copy enclosed), the challaning officers
punch the licence. In this situation, please provide the
legal basis for the action of challaning officers. To save
you laborious work, as a gesture of goodwill, I am not
demanding data pertaining to punching since 9th April.”
To this he received a response on 25-5-07 from DCP (Traffic) appellant
point wise. Not satisfied, however, appellant Shri Rakesh Agarwal moved his
first appeal before the Addl. CP (Traffic) on 30-5-07 challenging the
information provided against each point. Upon this, in a carefully worded
order of 29-6-07 Shri M.S. Upadhye, Addl. CP (Traffic) allowed part of the
appeal while refusing part as follows:
“It is noted that point wise information based on facts has been
furnished to the appellant by PIO/ Traffic except on some points.
As far as the figures of prosecution sought by the appellant at
point No. 1, 7, 8 is concerned, PIO/ Traffic is directed that the
available figures be given to the appellant within 7 working days.
As regards Q. No.2 PIO/ Traffic is directed to provide clear
information to the appellant whether OSS form is being issued
by the Zonal officers when they impound the vehicles for
violation of permit conditions. As regards information on Q. No.
3 it is informed that vehicles are seized for violation of permit
conditions in accordance with the directions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India and all Zonal Officers posted in Traffic Circles are
impounding the vehicles and hence no special teams have been
formed for this purpose. Hence name and designation of senior
most officer in the team is not possible to provide. In respect of
information on Q. No. 4, it is informed that firstly it would be very
difficult to find out the records in circle offices, as each and
every challan slip has to be searched to trace out challans
against auto rickshaws. Secondly, according to section 11 of
RTI Act disclosure of any information or record, or part thereof
on a request made under this Act which relates to or has been
supplied by a third party, can be done only with the permission
of that thir4d party and as such this information can not be given
to the appellant. As regards information on Q. No 5 PIO/ Traffic
is directed to provide copy of the relevant rules and copy of
notices to the appellant subject to the payment of fees as
prescribed under RTI Act 2005. Information sought at Q. No. 6
cannot be provided being Third Party information. In case the
appellant wishes to have information on any particular case, the
same shall be provided to him with the consent of the concerned3
third party under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005.
The requisite information in respect of all other points has been
supplied to the appellant and as such I do not find any reason to
give any direction to PIO/ Traffic in respect of these points.”
Besides, on various issues relating to the legal aspects on documents
etc. Addl. CP Shri Upadhye ruled as follows:
“Being the appellate authority, these are not of concern to the
undersigned whose mandate is confined to ensuring only that
information sought by the appellant is given in accordance with
the RTI Act within the specified time limit.”
On this order not, in the view of appellant Shri Agarwal, being complied
with, appellant moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
“1. The Respondent be directed to provide complete and
comprehensive information free of cost in one batch
immediately.
2. Penalty be imposed on Respondent No. 2 under
section 20 (1) of the RTI Act for the delay in supplying
the information, for not complying with the directions
of Respondent No. 2 and for denying information in a
malafide manner.”
In his grounds of appeal he has submitted that against points 1, 2, 5, 7,
8, 10 the DCP has failed to comply with the order of the 1st Appellate Authority
and has disputed the orders of Addl. CP (Traffic) with regard to points 3, 4, 11,
12, 13 and 14. The appeal was heard on 24-4-2009. The following are
present.
Appellant
Shri Rakesh Agarwal.
Respondents
Shri Prabhakar, DCP (Traffic) and PIO.
Shri V. K. Joshi, Inspector.
Shri Prabhakar, DCP (Traffic) and present PIO submitted with
documentary support that the application of 20-4-07 was received in PIO’s
office on 26-4-07, therefore, the response of 25-5-07 is within the time limit
mandated under sub-section (1) of Sec 7.
On the issue of compliance, however, he agreed that there had been a
failure of compliance at the level of PIO but that compliance with regard to
4
point Nos. 1, 7 and 8 was made on 5-8-07. Subsequently, in response to our
appeal notice further information has been provided on 26-3-07. Appellant
Shri Rakesh Agarwal agreed that this information has now been received.
Because the last compliance occurred after the second appeal was filed
which is dated 26-7-07 it is not mentioned in that appeal. Appellant is satisfied
with the answer which he has now received to questions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10
and does not press for more detailed answer to question 3, however, on
question 4 which has a bearing also on questions 6, 9, 11, 12 and 13 Shri
Rakesh Agarwal submitted that the information he had sought has been
denied.
Upon this PIO Shri Prabhakar submitted that whereas he agreed that
such information as is sought regarding the challan of auto rickshaws is public
information and it has been decided by the Traffic Department subsequent to
the orders of the Appellate Authority that such information be disclosed, the
issue is of compiling such information in order to place it in the public domain.
This exercise is on but because the information sought is enormous and
covers 5 years it will take time to compile fully. He agreed, however, that if
information is to be provided year wise it will be possible to provide
information for the year 2008 by ending May 2009.
DECISION NOTICE
There are three issues before us in this appeal. These are decided as follows:
i) Appellate Authority Shri M.S. Upadhye, Addl. CP Traffic has
directed part of the information to be provided to appellant Rakesh
Agarwal within seven working days of the date of decision, yet the
first response was only sent on 5.8.’07 i.e. 34 days after the issue of
orders of the 1st Appellate Authority and the second instalment only
on 26-3-09 i.e. in response to the notice for hearing of the second
appeal. Since this is a violation of the order of the 1st Appellate
Authority, Addl. CP (Traffic) will now enquire into the reasons
for the delay, identify the errant officials and report to us those
5
meriting imposition of penalty u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act by 14th
of May 2009.
ii) Respondents have taken the plea of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act in
refusing the detailed information on challans sought by appellant
Shri Rakesh Agarwal. However, they have admitted that such
information belongs in the public domain in light of the dictates of
the RTI Act 2005 and are taking pains to so place it. Whereas this
is commendable Section 7 (9) does not allow exemption from
disclosure but only the disclosure in a form different to the manner
in which it has been sought in certain cases. DCP (Traffic) has
agreed that the complete information will be compiled and
placed on the website of the Traffic Department within six
months of the date of receipt of this decision notice. However,
with regard to information for the year 2008 this will be provided to
appellant ending May 2009. Subsequently, appellant Shri Ramesh
Agarwal will receive a list for each year every month till the entire
information for the full five years is available in the public domain.
iii) It has been clarified in the hearing by PIO, Shri Prabhakar in
response to appellant Shri Agarwal’s contention that the answer
received to questions 12, 13 is vague since it did not cite the legal
basis for the action taken, that the legal basis is Section 206 (1) on
the application of which in such cases no trial court has objected
The Appeal is thus allowed in part. There will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
24-4-2009
6
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
24-4-2009
7