CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001659/8731
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001659
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Trilok Singh
108 – G, A-2 Pocket,
Mayur Vihar Phase – III,
Delhi – 110096.
Respondent : Mr. S. C. Chauhan
Public Information Officer & Regional Manager
Delhi Transport Corporation
Office of the Regional Manager (East)
N.N Depot Complex,
Delhi 110093
RTI application filed on : 23/12/2009
PIO replied : 19/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 04/02/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 03/03/2010
Second Appeal received on : 17/06/2010
Information Sought
The Appellant sought information regarding –
• Presently, which bus is running on schedule from Mayur Vihar Ph:3 via Daryaganj, Lal Kila,
Kashmere Gate.
• Why has the departure and arrival time of buses not mentioned on the notice board on the bus
stand at Mayur Vihar?
• It s not mentioned in the Bus conduct, the number of buses that are running from Mayur Vihar Ph-
3 to Daryaganj.
• Till how many stops from Mayur Vihar Ph-4 to Red Fort, is the Rs. 15 ticket valid? What is
amount for a ticket till Lajpath Rai Market in a DTC bus?
• The number of low floor buses running from Mayur Vihar Ph-3 to ISBT via Mother Dairy ITO,
Daryaganj, Red Fort, GPO, and Kashmere Gate.
• Who is official responsible to make sure that DTC buses are running at all times in areas like Red
Fort, GPO, Kashmere Gate etc.
• The official who stopped the bus service and did not provide a substitute service for Mayur Vihar
Ph: 3, Route No. 301 and LTD.
• How many buses are running between 6 pm to 9 pm at the bus stations at Kashmere Gate, GPO,
via Red For, Daryaganj, Mayur Vihar Ph:3.
• What actions are taken against the officials responsible for not providing the timely and required
bus service?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
Information sought was attached with the PIO’s reply after FAA’s order.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appellant, Sh. Tirlok Singh was not present on 26.02.20 10. Sh. R.S. Minhas, Sr. Manager (Tr.) Scindia
House was also present. Appellant filed an appeal dated 05.02.2010 w.r. to his RTI application dated
22.12.2009 (copy of application at Annexure-A) for seeking information under RTI Act, 2005.
During the course of appeal proceedings, Sb. R.S. Minhas contended that reply to Point No. 01, 03 to 08,
10 & 11 was sent to the Appellant vide letter No. TR/SH/ID-286/09/2010/240 dated 21.01.2010 and for
remaining point No. 02 & 09, the application was transferred to Dy. CGM (13)/PlO for furnishing reply to
the Appellant as these points pertain to PlO (E). Sh. Ashok Kumar, dealing assistance from the office of
PlO (E) informed that the Appellant was requested to deposit prescribed further fee for providing
information of Point No. 02 & 09.vide letter No, RM (E)/RTI/2010/34 dated 20.01.20.10.2010 but till date
the Appellant did not deposit the further fee for providing the information.
The reply furnished to the Appellant by the Traffic Department, Sc. House perused and found satisfactory.
The information of remaining point No. 02 & 09 will be furnished to him after depositing the further fee
as per the provision of R.T.I. Act. Since nothing survives in the appeal, therefore, the appeal is disposed of
accordingly.”
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. S. C. Chauhan, Public Information Officer & Regional Manager;
The PIO has shown proofs that he sent information regarding query-1, 3, 8, 10 & 11 on
20/01/2010. It is claimed that it was sent by UPC which has been shown to the Commission. It has also
been claimed that for query-2 & 9 the PIO had sent a letter on 20/01/2010 asking the appellant to pay
Rs.2/- for one page of information. Subsequently all the information has been sent to the appellant. The
appellant has claimed that he did not receive any of the letters sent by the PIO in January 2010. The
Commission would like to point out that the cost of one decision by the Information Commission is
between Rs.5000/- to Rs.10000/-. It is fairly common that Public Authorities state that they have sent the
information or communications under RTI by UPC and appellants claim that they have not received it.
The Commission therefore recommends to the public authority under its powers under Section 25(5) of
the RTI Act to send all the communications and information under RTI Act through Speed Post.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information appears to have been supplied to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
28 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
