Appeal No.179/SCIC/2012 Decided on: 11/07/2014

(found in Ashwini's comp in Recycle bin WHY ?)

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa

Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Appeal No.179/SCIC/2012

Decided on: 11/07/2014

Shri. Sukesh Arjun Talawnekar,

R/o H. No. 695,

Near Bank of India, Mayem,

Bicholim, Goa. ….. Appellant.

V/s

1. Assistant Director of Transport(North)/Public Information Officer,

O/o. the Assistant Director of Transport North,

Municipal Building,

Bicholim, Goa.

2. Deputy Director of Transport (North)/ First Appellate Authority,

O/o. the deputy Director of Transport,

Junta House, 1^st floor, 1^st lift,

Panaji-Goa. ….. Respondents.

O R D E R ( Open Court )

RTI Application dated: - 05/09/2012

PIO reply on: - 26/09/2012

First Appeal Filed on: - Not on record

FAA Order dated: - 03/10/2012

Second Appeal filed on: - 30/10/2012

1. This second appeal arises out of original RTI application dated 06/07/2012 made to PIO/Assistant Director of Transport (North), O/o, the Assistant Director of Transport Municipal Building, Bicholim,, Goa, in respect of Law applicable to cancellation of Hire purchase agreement on Registration Certificate (RC Book) of the vehicles.
2. This case has a short background. The appellant had taken loan from the Bank under Hire Purchase Scheme for his vehicle. The entry of hire purchase agreement appeared in the RC book of the vehicle and certain formalities are required to be completed before the Transport Authorities will cancel the entry of the hire purchase agreement . The existing law in this regards and Rules there under namely Central Motor Vehicle [(Rules 61(1) ] which deals in the issue prescribe that Form No. 35 will be filled in duplicate by the concerned owner of the RC book. This Form No. 35 contains several details to be filled by Bank Authorities including their signature.
3. It appears from the detail of this case that the Transport Authorities demand for their record, a covering letter from the Bank which is roughly equivalent to NOC for the cancellation of the hire purchase entry in the RC book of the vehicle.
4. The appellant here claims that in respect of his vehicle, he approached Transport Authorities for cancellation of entry of hire purchase agreement. For this purpose he submitted Form No. 35 in duplicate as requirement under Rules 61 (1). The Transport Authorities rejected his application pointing out that he has not submitted “covering letter from the financer authenticating that Hire/purchase agreement has been terminated as mentioned in Form 35”.
5. This letter was sent to him on 27/07/2012 , and is part reply of the PIO given to the appellant in response to his earlier RTI application dated 06/07/2012, asking for reason for refused to update his RC book.
6. The above letter is the genesis of the new second RTI application dated 05/09/2012, which is before me. It has five questions, all of which show the chagrin of the appellant against requirement of this extra documents towards clearing the RC book from the loan encumbrance. For example question No. 4 asked “Name, address and vehicle number of all the persons found by you doing forgery in Form 35 in your past experience till today in Bicholim RTO office.”
7. Reply was given by the PIO on 26/09/2012 (in time) stating that information to questions 2 to 5 is “NIL or not applicable”. The first appeal was also filed as appeal No. 29/2012. The FAA dismissed it stating that there was no substance in the appeal.
8. The second appeal was filed on 30/10/2012 and was part heard on 04/04/2014, 24/04/2014 and 11/07/2014. The present PIO orally explained that even though the Act and Rules simply provided that Form No. 35 be filled in duplicate. The Department have been insisting on covering letter from the Bank or concerned financial institution by way of abundant precaution. This is a long maintained tradition they approve since it safeguards the bankers interest. It is true that no fraud cases have been registered for forgery in respect of Form No. 35, and it could well be result of this extra precaution.

9. PIO has filed the above argument by way of his reply dated 11/07/2014. But he agrees that a common person will not know this extra requirement.
10. I have gone through the record. As for RTI application, the PIO has not made any “technical default”. However In must direct him to ensure that web site of the Transport Director must give details of document requires for termination of hire purchase agreement . The website should include sample/format of the covering letter as an added requirement for the said termination. He should submit a copy of said web page and URL for the record of this file, within a month Department should also consider waiving of this extra requirement. .

With above observations this appeal order is dismissed. Order declared in open Court. Inform the parties.

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Panaji – Goa.