CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001792/15683
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001792
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Bhagwan Jaiswal
471 Kashmere Bagh
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110007
Respondent : Mr. Hari Kishan
Public Information Officer & Superintendent
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Hackney Carriage Department
7th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 13/12/2010
PIO replied : 12/01/2011
First appeal filed on : 11/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 10/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 05/07/2011
The Appellant has sought information of the letter sent by him dated 25/08/2010 asking a few things
about the order dated 08/05/2009 of the seizing of the illegal rickshaws.
Sl. Information Sought: Reply of the PIO
1. What are the current and the day to day status of the application filed The case related to the
by the Appellant and what order has been passed by the concerned rickshaws is still pending in
officer? the court.
2. Please provide the name and designation of the officers if any who are Corporation has not delayed
responsible for the delay of the action which had to be taken on the any application and no action
letter of the Appellant. is pending.
3. Will any action be taken against the officers concerned who are Corporation has not delayed
responsible for the delay for the action to be taken on the above any application and no action
mentioned letter? If yes, then in how much time the action would be is pending.
taken for the concerned officers.
4. When will the action be taken for the Appellant’s letter and will the Case is pending in the High
department provide the information to the Appellant? Court.
5. Is it true as per the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 that the tax Case is pending in the High
would be charged on the cycle rickshaws moving on the roads of Delhi Court.
and the one who doesn’t pay tax, that cycle rickshaw would be
considered illegal.
6. As per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, how many cycle Copy of the application has been
rickshaws have been seized by the MCD since 01/06/2010 till provide to you of the letter no.
30/11/2010 and if no then what is the reason behind the same? 149 dated 29/12/2010
7. As accepted by the MCD, is the renewal for the cycle rickshaw 89429 Same as above
being done for the year 2010-2011 from 01/11/2010. If yes then please
provide the reasons for the same.
8. Will not following the court orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated The orders of the Court are
08/05/2009 be considered as the contempt of Court or not? being complied with.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO especially for query no. 5 and 7.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO was directed to provide the information to the Appellant within 30 days for the concerned query no. 5 and 7.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Hari Kishan, PIO & Superintendent and Mr. Kaptan Singh, the then Superintendent/PIO;
The respondent states that he has given the information as per the order of the FAA on 06/04/2011
on queries 5 & 7. He also states that as per an office order issued by MCD Commissioner all the staff of
Hackney Carriage Department has not been attached with Zonal Veterinary Officers of the respective
zones.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided.
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
15 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SU)
