Information regarding system to monitor repetitive traffic violations was sought - PIO explained the process of registering the complaints through a computer program - CIC: provide point wise information as available on record23 Jan, 2014
1. The appellant filed an application dated 30.04.2013 under the RTI Act, seeking information regarding whether there is any system to monitor repetitive traffic violations, guidelines to handle traffic violations including cancellation of driving licenses and impounding of vehicles, etc. CPIO responded vide letter dated 28.05.2013. Appellant filed first appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 04.05.2013. FAA vide order dated 10.07.2013 invited the appellant for a meeting. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 30.10.2013.
2. Appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that he was seeking information about the system to monitor repetitive traffic violations, the guidelines to handle traffic violations including cancellation of driving licenses and impounding of vehicles, etc. Appellant stated that the main focus of his RTI application was on the following points:
(a) tamper proof complaint cards;
(b) guidelines for preventing repetitive violations;
(c) ascertainment of cases before the court regarding the repetitive violation of traffic;
(d) number of traffic violations permitted before suspension of licence, cancellation of licence and impounding of vehicles;
(e) the system to know the status of a complaint filed by the complainant; and
(f) the system adopted by the police for judicial compliance.
3. Respondent stated that there were four parameters relevant to registering a complaint about traffic violations including date, time, place and vehicle registration number. Respondent stated that if any of the four parameters were not attended to, the system would automatically discard the complaints.
4. Respondent stated that the system did not record about the discarded complaints. Respondent stated that if the four parameters were fulfilled then the system would register the complaint.
5. Respondent stated that after the complaint was registered a notice would be issued against the offender giving 30 days time to file a reply. Respondent stated that if the offender filed a reply then the police would examine the case and if they were not satisfied with the reply then they put up the case before the court.
6. Respondent stated that they had provided the available information to the appellant.
7. Respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information as available in respect of para 3 above in context of the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri P Tirunagavalli v. Delhi Police in Decision No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002821/VS/05785