In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001753
CIC/AD/A/2011/001754
Date of Hearing : September 13, 2011
Date of Decision : September 13, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Rakesh Agarwal
C/o Nyayabhoomi
B9, Vikram Nagar
Feroze Shah Kotla
New Delhi 110 002
The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Respondents
Pollution Control OfficerSecretariat
Transport Department
5/9 Underhill Road
Delhi 110 054
Represented by : None
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001753
CIC/AD/A/2011/001754
ORDER
CIC/AD/A/2011/001753
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.4.4.11 with the PIo, Transport Department seeking
information against fifteen points in respect of notification dt.17.3.11 about installment of GPS devices
in autorickshaws and other matters including a copy of only that portion of the relevant document which
details the mechanism of use of the panic button by a passenger;, communication of emergency to the
Central Command Centre and the name of and the details of the action on the part of the agency that will
take action as a consequence; detailed specifications of GPS/GPRS and other related/attached
equipment such as display unit, printer, paper roll etc; a sample of the GPS/GPRS device together with
all related/attached equipment such as printer, paper roll etc; detailed breakup under various heads
of all charges/fees/expenses etc. payable or paid to DIMTS on onetime or consultancy basis for the
said scheme; detailed breakup under various heads of all charges/fees/expenses etc. payable or
paid to DIMTS on a regular basis.
2. Shri Ajay Mamoria, SPIO vide his letter dt.6.4.11 transferred the RTI Application to PIO, DIMTS. The
Applicant filed an appeal dt.16.5.11 with the Appellate Authority stating that the PIO has invoked
section 6(3) of the RTI Act without realizing that the matter of applicability of RTI Act on DIMTS is
sub judice and is before the Delhi High Court. Therefore, instead of transferring the application, the
PIO ought to have obtained information from DIMTS and supplied to him. He added that there are
several queries which directly pertain to the Department and remain unanswered. The MLO (ARU)
replied on 21.5.11 furnishing information against points 14 and 15. Shri R.P.Meena, Appellate
Authority replied on 17.6.11 stating that the Appellant has not received the reply of MLO and
confirming that a copy of the reply was handed over during the hearing held by him. Being aggrieved
with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.20.7.11 before CIC reiterating his request for
information against points 5, 10, 12, 14 and 15.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Commission reviewed the information sought by the Appellant against
points 5, 10, 12, 14 and 15 as per details given below:
Point 5
The Commission directs the PIO to inform the Appellant about the mechanism that is set into motion
on the pressing of a panic button by a passenger, as available on record. If not available , the
Appellant to be informed the same formally in writing.
Point 10
The Commission directs the PIO to provide detailed specifications of GPS/GPRS and other related
equipment . If information is not available, the Appellant to be informed accordingly.
Point 12
The Commission directs the PIO to provide the sample, free of cost to the Appellant in view of
the delay in supplying information.
Points 14 and 15
The PIO to allow the Appellant to inspect the relevant records on a mutually convenient date and
time and to provide him with attested copies of documents identified by him, free of cost.
All information to be provided by 1.10.11.
3. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
CIC/AD/A/2011/001754
Background
4. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.23.3.11 with the PIO, Transport Department
seeking information against 26 points in respect of notification dt.17.3.11 about installment of GPS
devices in autorickshaws and other related matters. He also wanted to know whether the auto driver
can refuse a passenger when he is going home at the end of his shift and how he can indicate that he
will accept a fare. He requested foe inspection of the entire file(s) concerning GPS/GPRS including
any agreements, contracts, tenders, reports, proposals, specifications of equipment, file notings,
correspondence, etc. and also of the equipment in the Central Command Centre/Control Room
dealing with the GPS Copies of any documents after inspection to be provided upon payment on the
spot or in due course. The Applicant further sought a list of vendors authorised by DIMTS together
with the work that they are authorised to do besides information on whether the amount is to be
collected by the agency designated for collection of amount to be deposited, as per condition
No.26(I), on a calendar year or financial year basis .
5. Shri Ajay Mamoria, SPIO vide his letter dt.20.4.11 provided the point wise information dt.20.4.11
furnished by MLO(ARU). The Applicant however filed an appeal dt.25.4.11 with the Appellate
Authority commenting on the reply provided against points 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 22. Shri
R.P.Meena, Appellate Authority replied on 25.4.11 stating that MLO(ARU) has agreed to provide
information against point 5. He added that a reply received from DIMTS against points 11, 12 and 16
has already were provided to the Appellant. He also directed MLO(ARU) to provide information
against points 14 and 22. The Appellant, being aggrieved with this reply, filed a second appeal
dt.19.7.11 before CIC reiterating his request for the information against points 5, 11, 12, 16, 17 and
22.
Decision
5. During the hearing, the Commission reviewed the information against points 5, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 22
Point 5
The Commission directs the MLO(ARU) to provide the information to the Appellant and also to show
cause as to why the order of the Appellate Authority has not been complied with. He is directed to
submit his written response to the Commission by 13.10.11.
Point 11
The PIO is directed to allow the Appellant to inspect the relevant records on a mutually convenient
date and time and to provide him with attested copies of documents identified by him, free of cost.
Point 12
The PIO to allow the Appellant to inspect the infrastructure in the Central Command Centre and the
Control Room.
Points 16 and 17.
The Appellant submitted that there is a contradiction in the replies provided against these two
queries, with regard to vendors authorized by DIMTS . The PIO is directed to provide the required
clarification, along with copies of the supporting documents. Inspection of repair centres may also be
allowed to the Appellant, as sought in point 17.
Point 22
The PIO is directed to provide information against this query.
All information to be provided by 1.10.11.
6. The Commission directs the PIO to show cause as to why he failed to appear before the Commission
for the hearing. He is directed to submit his written explanation by 13.10.11.
7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Mayank Gilani
H.No.B40, 1st Floor
Moti Nagar
New Delhi
2. The Public Information Officer
Chief Minister’s Office
RTI Cell
C302, 3rd Level
Delhi Secretariat
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
Chief Minister’s Office
RTI Cell
C302, 3rd Level
Delhi Secretariat
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving
(1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission’s decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she
considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what
information has not been provided.
