The question of whether the Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit System can be directed to furnish the information or not is pending before the High Court - CIC: the Department of Transport to collect the information & provide it to the appellant
1. Appellant through his RTI application sought to know the detail of total No. of depot of cluster buses in Delhi along with the routes of the buses, In Kher Bus depot – how many buses are their along with the detail of the driver and conductor, How many staff are employed in the Kher bus depot..etc
2. That DIMTS Ltd is not a Public authority under RTI Act.
Ground for First Appeal:
3. Nonfurnishing of the information sought by the respondent.
Ground For Second Appeal :
4. Nonfurnishing of information sought by DIMMTS.
5. The appellant made his submissions. The Respondent is not represented by any officer. The appellant worked in the respondent authority office for some time and he is seeking information about the about the Cluster buses from the respondent authority. The said respondent authority in their reply to the RTI application had stated that Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit System (DIMTS) is not ‘Public Authority’ under the RTI Act.
6. Having heard the submissions and perused the record, the Commission observes that the issue of whether the respondent are Public authority or not has already been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Delhi Integrated Multi Model Transit System Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Aggarwal [2012(131)DRJ537] dated 06.07.2012 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while assailing the Common order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "CIC") in Complaint no. CIC/SG/C/2009/001472+001312 & Appeal No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000341, had held that the Petitioner Company to be a "Public Authority" under the Right to Information Act and stated as follows:
“…….62. For the reasons, as stated above, I hold the petitioner company to be "Substantially financed", for the purposes of the Act.
63. In view of the aforementioned observations, I find no infirmity with the decision of the CIC holding the petitioner company to be a "Public Authority" under the Act.
64. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The present petitions are accordingly dismissed. The respondent shall be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.10,000/ in each of the petitions. Interim orders stand vacated.”
7. The above said decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been challenged in appeal before the Division bench of the Same Court and the matter is pending final decision.
8. The Commission while considering the above stated facts, is of the view that question of whether the respondents can be directed to furnish the information or not, cannot be decided at present as the matter of the respondent being Public authority or not, is pending the final decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and therefore, the Commission directs the Department of Transport, GNCTD who is the regulator of the respondent authority, to collect the information sought by the appellant and provide the same to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
9. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
Citation: Deepak Kumar goyal v. DIMTS in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/001024