CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00069 dated 30.1.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri N. B. Tiwari
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (Traffic)
Facts
:
By an application of 19.7.07, Shri N. B. Tiwari of Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi
applied to the PIO Delhi Traffic Police, Central Zone, seeking the following
information:
1. “Whether the corridor premises of 3/13-B, Asaf Ali Road is
no parking zone as per Traffic Rules.
2. If yes, please provide Minutes of Meeting on which date the
corridor premises declared that No Parking Zone by Delhi
Traffic Police Authority, because towing team forcibly picked
my vehicle No. DL 3S AT 8663 on dt. 29.6.07 (RC Copy
enclosed).
3. In your opinion the violation of the Motor Vehicle Act in
corridor area are in main road area.
4. Why the Towing Team forcibly picked up the Vehicle instead
of my objection.”
To this he received a response dated 17.8.07 from PIO Shri D. P. Verma,
DCP (Traffic) HQ, Delhi, as below:
“Q.1. Whether the corridor premises of 3/13-B, Asaf Ali Road is no
parking zone as per Traffic Rules.
Ans: No. Asaf Ali Road Corridor has not been declared No
Parking officially but no one is allowed to park vehicle on the
main road obstructing smooth flow of traffic / improper
parking.
Q.2 If yes, please provide Minutes of Meeting on which date the
corridor premises declared that No Parking Zone by Delhi
Traffic Police Authority, because towing team forcibly picked
my vehicle No. DL 3S AT 8663 on dt. 29.6.07 (RC Copy
enclosed).
Ans: The vehicle was towed away and prosecuted because it was
parked improperly / obstructively.
1
Q.3 In your opinion the violation of the Motor Vehicle Act in
corridor area are in main road area.
Ans: Yes, improper / obstructive parking is not allowed at any
place. Hence to be prosecuted under M.V.Act.
Q.4 Why the Towing Team forcibly picked up the Vehicle instead
of my objection.”
Ans: The traffic staff had made the public announcement by PA
System that obstructively parked vehicles be removed at
once by their owners but despite of announcement the
vehicles were not removed. Hence the traffic staff towed
away the vehicles and prosecuted.”
Shri Tiwari then moved an appeal before Addl. Commissioner of Police
(Traffic) on 24.8.07 complaining against the action taken in towing his vehicle
and raising fresh questions. Upon this Shri M. S. Upadhye, Addl. Commissioner
of Police (Traffic) ordered as follows:
“It is noted that information supplied to the appellant by PIO/Traffic
vide letter number referred above is correct and complete in all
respects. Hence there is no ground to issue any fresh direction to
the PIO/Traffic in this regard and the appeal filed by the appellant is
dismissed.”
In his second appeal before us appellant Sh. Tiwari’s prayer is as below:
“1. As per RTI Act 2005, the Traffic Authority declared that
3/13/-B, Asaf Ali corridor premises is No Parking Zone.
2. Then, why the Towing Team forcibly picked my Vehicle
No. DL 3S AT 8663 and charged Rs. 700/- as per Hon’ble
High Court’s Rule.
3. If the Duty Officer, Mr. Mohinder Singh, ASI knowing that
the premises is no parking zone why he has illegally
charged Rs. 700/-
4. What are the Rules about illegal charges to refund the
vehicle holder are can approach any other Authority like
Judiciary to recover illegal amount.”
The appeal was heard on 18.6.09. The following are present:
Appellant
Sh. N. B. Tiwari (who appeared after the hearing)
Respondents
Shri Prabhakar, PIO / DCP Traffic
Shri Amrik Singh, Insp. RTI2
PIO Shri Prabhakar, DCP (Traffic) submitted that he has in his possession
the concerned rules about levy of charges and refund.
DECISION NOTICE
We find that all the information sought by appellant Shri N. B. Tiwari in his
written application has been provided by the CPIO. Shri Tiwari’s complaint
thereafter seems more to be of his perception that he has been treated unjustly,
leading to his raising questions not even referred to in his initial application. But
in this regard while he himself admits to having been told “that 3/13/-B, Asaf Ali
corridor premises is No Parking Zone” he has gone on to ask why penalty has
been imposed, when the answer is self evident. As correctly held by Addl.
Commissioner of Police Sh. Upadhye, the task of an Appellate Authority is to
examine the manner in which the information has been provided in response to
the questions asked in the original application. Neither the First Appellate
Authority nor the Second Appellate Authority under the Act or indeed any other
law require to replace the initial adjudicating authority with regard to the issues
adjudicated upon. This appeal is, therefore, without merit and is hereby
dismissed.
However, as submitted by Shri Prabhakar in the hearing, he may at his
discretion provide to appellant Sh. N. B. Tiwari, a copy of the rules sought by him
in his prayer in the second appeal.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
18.6.2009
3
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
18.6.2009
4