During peak traffic hours, restrictions on refrigerated vehicles carrying chicken, meat and fish are put in place to facilitate traffic movement - there is no independent category for eggs u/s 115 of Motor Vehicles Act - CIC: inspection allowed
25 Jan, 2014Information pertaining to grant of 'No Entry Permission' by police to certain vehicles carrying chicken, meat, fish, and eggs - information on the basis of the protocol in position under section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act pertinent to the entry of vehicles provided - during peak hours, certain restrictions are put in place to facilitate the movement of traffic - the vehicles carrying chicken, meat and fish in refrigerated vehicles are being allowed during the peak hours, but eggs do not find mention in the guidelines as there is no independent category for eggs - CIC: inspection of documents allowed
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 12.12.2012 seeking information pertaining to grant of 'No Entry Permission' to certain vehicles.
2. The PIO responded on 10.01.2013 and provided pointwise information to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal on 02.02.2013 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 26.02.2013 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 02.08.2013 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing personally.
4. The appellant referred to her RTI application of 12.12.2012 and reiterated the 4 points in the RTI application bearing on the protocol put in place by the police regarding the vehicles carrying chicken, meat, fish, and eggs.
5. The appellant stated that they had received a response from the CPIO on 10.01.2013 but the respondent is evading information on certain important points in the RTI application.
6. The respondent stated that they have provided complete information on the basis of the protocol in position under section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act pertinent to the entry of vehicles.
7. The respondent stated that the during peak traffic hours there are certain restrictions which are put in place. These are no entry restrictions to facilitate the movement of traffic. The respondent explained that certain exceptions can be made reference the peak hours for which the applicants have to apply in the month of November following which the standing committee takes a view. The respondent stated that under the system, the committee considers the category under which the application has been made and then decides to grant permission as per their understanding of what is in the best public interest.
8. The respondent stated that the vehicles carrying chicken, meat and fish in refrigerated vehicles are being allowed during the peak hours, but in so far as eggs are concerned this does not find mention in the guidelines. The respondent explained that there is no independent category for eggs.
9. What emerged from the hearing was this that the appellant is seeking information about the manner in which eggs can be included as an additional category over and above the existing categories.
Decision:
10. The respondent is directed to enable the appellant, within 30 days of this order, to inspect the documents pertinent to the RTI application in the light of the hearing and provide photocopies of the relevant documents. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Vandana Bajaj v. Delhi Police in Decision No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001956/VS/05805