SHILLONG, Sep 15: Several local taxis in Shillong are allegedly plying without permits, according to RTI activist Disparsing Rani, who believes that Rs 10,000 is the charge to obtain a sticker from the Office of the East Khasi Hills Superintendent of Police. The police have, however, denied the allegations.
Quoting an RTI report obtained from the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), he said that the police have given strict instructions to the in-charge of seven traffic branches in Shillong to conduct checking of vehicles on a daily basis, especially local taxis and auto rickshaws using duplicate/fake permit stickers.
As per the RTI information, three fake stickers were recently detected and action has been taken against the violators.
It has been alleged that there are some private vehicles that purchase the stickers and operate as local taxis, Rani said.
Last month, the East Khasi Hills Local Taxis Association had informed the government that they are against the system of stickers while reasoning that it paves way to illegalities.
“However, I received complaint that the same situation has arose as there are several vehicles which are without permits but use the stickers,” he said.
When contacted for reaction on the allegations, East Khasi Hills Police PRO Vivek Syiem said that the allegations are baseless.
“Traffic Branch takes Rs 150 per sticker after documents are furnished. Casting aspersions on SP EKH without proper facts is highly inappropriate. We would like to know who paid Rs 10,000,” Syiem said.
He also said that in the RTI, he questioned the police as to why the traffic police offers of Lumdiengjri Police station have not paid the taxes for their vehicles (ML 05 F6029, ML 05 D 6999, and ML 05E 6321).
The police replied that two vehicles with registration number ML 05 D 6999 and ML 05E 6321 belong to a police officer of Lumdiengjri police station but (ML 05 F6029) does not belong to any officer or traffic personnel of the police station.
According to the RTI, documents in respect of the vehicle with registration ML 05 D 6999 was not up to date, and the officer had to pay fine as per the Motor Vehicles Act.
