RTI Applicant had applied online on Parivahan website for issue of NOC; He asked for stamped hardcopies of NOC - PIO: NOC approved today & copies can be downloaded from the website - CIC: Appropriate reply has been furnished, PIO admonished for abstaining

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 14.08.2023 seeking the following information:

“I had applied online on Parivahan website for issuing an NOC for my vehicle CH01AV3479. The application number for NOC is CH230506V4402827 and payment receipt is attached. However, I have not received the NOC till date. I request you under the RTI Act to please provide two duly stamped hardcopies of the NOC through post at my address K 138 Fifth Floor RBI Officers Quarters Maratha Mandir Marg Byculla Mumbai 400008. The official stamp and sign of the Assistant RTO or RTO may please be affixed on both the hardcopies of the NOC”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.08.2023 stating as under:

“As per information available on Parivahan.gov.in website your NOC is approved on today i.e. 28.08.2023, therefore you can download your NOC from the above said website in the download document section and print No Objection Certificate (NOC)/No Dues.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.08.2023 with the plea that certified copy of NOC has not been provided to him. The FAA order is not on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Absent.

Both the parties were absent during hearing, despite being served the hearing notice in advance.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records observes that appropriate reply has been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, which is upheld. Moreover, the appellant chose not to appear before the bench to buttress his case.

Further, the prayer of Appellant seeking certified copy of desired information which is already available on website with log-in access and can be easily downloaded after logging-in. Thus, no longer held by the CPIO. In this regard, attention of the appellant is invited to a judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs R S Misra on 21 November, 2017 wherein it was observed that:

“…In the present case, maintaining two parallel machinery: one under SCR and the other under the RTI Act, would clearly lead to duplication of work and unnecessary expenditure, in turn leading to clear wastage of human resources as well as public funds. Also, request for hard copies of information (as contemplated under Section 7 of the RTI Act) in respect of those information which are already available and accessible in the public domain, under the mechanism contemplated under the SCR, will further lead to unnecessary diversion of resources and conflict with other public interest which includes optimal use of limited fiscal resources.”

In view of the above, no relief can be ordered in this matter.

Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonished the conduct of the CPIO for remaining absent during the hearing despite prior intimation and sternly cautions him/her to be careful in future so as to avoid attracting penal action.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Keshav Khanna v. Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh, CIC/STAUT/A/2023/649724; Date of Decision: 14.01.2025