Central Information Commission
Yogesh Jain vs Delhi Police on 20 May, 2021
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108039
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108040
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108041
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108042
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108044
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108045
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108046
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108047
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108049
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108048
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108329
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/109183
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/110783
Shri Yogesh Jain ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, Central District ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Sh. Krishan Lal- ACP Hq., Daryaganj
Date of Hearing : 19.05.2021
Date of Decision : 20.05.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on dated
108039 12.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 28.11.2019 14.02.2020
108040 12.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 28.11.2019 14.02.2020
108041 12.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 28.11.2019 14.02.2020
108042 12.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 27.11.2019 14.02.2020
108044 11.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 28.11.2019 14.02.2020
108045 11.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 27.11.2019 14.02.2020
108046 11.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 27.11.2019 14.02.2020
108047 11.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 27.11.2019 14.02.2020
Page 1 of 22
108049 11.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 27.11.2019 14.02.2020
108048 11.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 27.11.2019 14.02.2020
108329 11.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 27.11.2019 14.02.2020
109183 12.09.2019 14.10.2019 09.11.2019 28.11.2019 25.02.2020
110783 03.10.2019 13.11.2019 17.11.2019 23.12.2019 05.03.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1)CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108039 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated12.09.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points relating to FIR No. 370/2016 dated 19.10.2016 filed with PS Darya Ganj by the Appellant u/s 420/468/471 IPC:-
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 28.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.Page 2 of 22
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Decision relied upon: 1. Delhi High Court decisions in Amit Kr. Srivastava vs. CIC dated 05.02.2021; 2.Sh. Rakesh Kr. Gupta vs. CIC & Anr. dated 22.01.2021 have been annexed with the Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Written submissions dated 17.05.2021 have been received from the Respondent, which is a reiteration of the facts as already noted above.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108040 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking information on the following 07 points relating to FIR No. 371/2016 dated 21.10.2016 filed with PS Darya Ganj by the Appellant U/S 420/468/471 IPC:-
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.Page 3 of 22
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 28.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108041 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking information on the following 07 points relating to FIR No. 356/2016 dated 02.10.2016 filed with PS Darya Ganj:-Page 4 of 22
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 28.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108042 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2019 seeking information on the following 07 points relating to FIR No. 335/2016 dated 01.09.2016 filed with PS Darya Ganj:-Page 5 of 22
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 27.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
(5) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108044 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2019 seeking information on the following 07 points relating to FIR No. 318/2016 filed with PS Darya Ganj:-Page 6 of 22
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 28.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.Page 7 of 22
(6) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108045 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking information on the following 03 points relating to FIRs No. 356/2016, 318/2016, 333/2016, 335/2016, 370/2016 and 371/2016 filed with PS Darya Ganj:-
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 27.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
(7) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108046 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points relating to criminal complaint being GD no. 80 dated 21.06.2019 filed with PS Darya Ganj u/s 409/467/468/471/420/197/198/477A:-Page 8 of 22
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 27.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.Page 9 of 22
(8) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108047 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points relating to criminal complaint being GD no. 32 dated 24.06.2019 filed with PS Darya Ganj u/s 409 IPC filed with PS Darya Ganj against Central Bank and its officials/agent/assignee for criminal breach of trust:-
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 27.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 10 of 22
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
(9) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108049 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking information on the following 04 points relating to written representation dated 03.05.2018 submitted before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi regarding the pending FIRs:-
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 27.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.Page 11 of 22
(10) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108048 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points relating to complaint being GD no. 34 dated 25.06.2019 with PS Darya Ganj about forged and fabricated share transfer:-
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 27.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the Page 12 of 22 decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
(11) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108329 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points relating to complaint being GD No. 35 dated 25.06.2019 with PS Darya Ganj:-
PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 27.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.Page 13 of 22
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
(12) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/109183 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking information on the following 07 points relating to FIR No. 333/2016 dated 31.08.2016 filed with PS Darya Ganj, by Dr. Mrs. Anupreksha Jain u/s 420/468/471 IPC:-
PIO, Central District, furnished the following reply vide letter dated 14.10.2019.Page 14 of 22
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 28.11.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Both parties are heard through audio conference. Respondent stated that the cases are still under investigation and a CA is likely to be appointed to assist in investigation of the financial issues raised in the complaints.
Appellant stated that he had filed the complaint before the police in 2014 and the FIR was registered only after the Ld. MM passed an order on 21.10.2016. However, after 2 years a vague status report was filed by the police before the Court and hence the above RTI applications were filed by him to know the exact position of the cases. Responding to the Respondent's contention, the Appellant pointed out that if the police is not equipped to investigate the financial issues, the matter should be transferred to the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police. Instead, after passage of more than six years, the Respondents are still taking a plea that a CA needs to be appointed for analysis of the financial allegations and denying disclosure of information on the ground that investigation is pending. It is the Appellant's contention that he is the complainant, a victim of fraud involving a huge sum of money, on account of forgery and fake transfer of shares, without his consent or signature. Therefore, disclosure of information to him regarding the complaints filed by him will not hamper the process of investigation since he wants the investigation to be completed and would rather assist in the process, if required.
Respondent stated that he is not equipped with the complete facts of the case and not in a position to assist the Commission. The concerned Investigating Officer-Sonal Raj is on casual leave and hence he sought time to present his submissions on a later date.
Decision Both parties have been given adequate opportunity to present their respective contentions. While examining the detailed arguments placed forth by the Appellant, the following judicial precedents are found topically relevant:Page 15 of 22
i. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dy. Commissioner of Police vs D.K.Sharma, [WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010], held: "6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) ofthe RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden"
ii. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as in the matter of Bhagat Singh v. CIC W.P.(C) No. 3114/2007, (Justice Ravindra Bhat) upholding that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information., observing that:
"..13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8 (1) (h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information."
iii. Likewise, in the case of B.S. Mathur vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court, (2011) 125 DRJ 508, it was held:
"..The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation."Page 16 of 22
iv. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Union of India v. Manjit Singh Bali [W.P.(C) 634I/2015, decided on 06.08.2018] had held:
" 24. In the present case, the petitioner has not indicated any possible reason or ground to establish that the disclosure of information as sought by the petitioner would impede prosecution of the offender. xxx xxx xx.
25. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the RTI Act is a statutory expression of one of the facets of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and any exclusionary clause under the RTI Act must be construed keeping in view the object for providing such exclusion. By virtue of Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India, reasonable restrictions in exercise of rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India are sustainable if they are in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The exclusion under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act - information which would impede process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offenders-has to be read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India."
v.Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Adesh Kumar vs Union of India [WP (C) No. 3543/2014 dated 16.12.2014] held:
" 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders could be denied. In order to deny information, the public authority must form an affirmative opinion that the disclosure of information would impede investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders; a mere perception or an assumption that disclosure of information may impede prosecution of offenders is not sufficient. In the present case, neither the FAA nor the CIC has considered as to how the information as sought for would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the petitioner and other accused.
10. A bare perusal of the order passed by the FAA also indicates that the aspect as to how the disclosure of information would impede prosecution has not been considered. Merely, citing that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act would not absolve the public authority from discharging its onus as required to claim such exemption.
vi. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Delhi Subordinate service ... Board vs Naveen Yadav[WP (C) No. 8960/2018 decided on 27.08.2018] held:Page 17 of 22
" 7. Ms Ahlawat, further submits that since the matter is under investigation with Anti Corruption Branch of GNCTD and an FIR has been registered, no information in the matter could be provided as it would impede the process of investigation. This contention is also unpersuasive. This Court in number of cases has held that the public authority denying information on the ground of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act would necessarily have to briefly indicate as to how the disclosure of any information would impede the progress of any investigation."
The above decisions are already well known but have been reproduced here to indicate that there have been numerous instances, when the Court has clearly spelt out that information sought cannot be exempted from disclosure merely because the Respondent chooses to cite the provision of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The onus lies on the public authority claiming the exemption to demonstrate in what manner disclosure of such information could impede the investigation. Yet, some public authorities, continue to deny information without adequate reasons, like in the above mentioned 12 cases.
In all of the aforementioned cases, the Appellant has sought information pertaining to complaints and FIRs filed by him, hence, it is highly unlikely that he would impede the already delayed investigation if the information is disclosed to him.
In spite of ample opportunity to submit their side of the arguments, the Respondent - PIO/Sh. Rohit Meena, Addl DCP, Central District- chose to neither attend the hearing nor submit any substantial arguments in support of the denial of information, except the documents already submitted by the Appellant (with the Second Appeals). The ACP who was deputed to attend the hearing was clueless about the facts of the case and was unable to convince the Bench about applicability of the Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act in these cases. The lack of preparedness and casual approach on the part of the Respondent, despite granting adequate time and opportunity has therefore vitiated today's proceedings.
Under the circumstances, the Commission is unable to accept the contentions of the Respondent that on the pretext of pendency of an investigation, the victim himself has been denied access to information he is rightfully entitled to, from 2016 to 2021. It goes without saying that the pace and mode of investigation in these cases already indicates the approach of the Respondent authority. This Commission refrains from making a comment on the police investigations, since it falls outside the ambit of these cases. However, the deliberate and wilful denial of information in these cases has made the Appellant run from pillar to post to seek information about the fate of complaints and FIRs filed by him, and is directly in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Accordingly, it is hereby directed that PIO-Sh. Rohit Meena, Addl DCP shall:
Page 18 of 22I) Furnish complete information including i) copy of served copy of written communication/Inquiry Notices etc. issued for inquiry to any person(s) including to accused persons with respect to all the FIRs and complaints filed by the Appellant mentioned hereinabove; ii) list of copy of filed reply/communication in pursuance to such notices, along with details annexure/supporting documents; iii) copy of all Board resolution and all meeting minutes of Rishabh Electricals Pvt. Ltd. between 2004-
2013, if filed by accused company in connection with case FIR; iv) copy of statement taken/recorded/given by all persons in connection with the FIRs and complaints filed by the Appellant; v) copy of any impounded document or seized evidence in connection with the above cases; and vi) investigation reports with respect to the above cases and all other relevant documents sought by the Appellant, pertaining to the above mentioned six FIRs and complaints filed by the Appellant, as permissible under provisions of the RTI Act. In the event any specific information is denied, the Respondent shall clearly indicate as to how the disclosure of any information is exempt under any specific provision of the RTI Act.
II) Submit an explanation for the inordinate delay and causing obstruction in the dissemination of information to the Appellant, leading to contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Both the above directions should be duly complied with and report in this regard should reach the Commission by 15.08.2021, failing which necessary action for non-compliance will be initiated suo motu.
Registry of this Bench is directed to send a copy of this order to the FAA/DCP, Central District- Sh. Jasmeet Singh, and recommend that suitable action be taken with respect to the above cases.
(13) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/110783 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2019 seeking information on the following 08 points relating to FIR No. 733/2015 dated 15.11.2015 U/s 420/468/471 and arise out of decisions dated 29.01.2018 passed by an earlier Bench of the CIC, whereby directions were given to the Respondent to furnish information sought by the Appellant. The Appellant has filed the instant case, alleging that the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the CIC had not been complied with by the Respondent on the ground that the relevant documents have since been destroyed. The Respondent had submitted a report before the Commission vide communication dated 01.03.2018, informing the Commission about destruction of the records.
Page 19 of 22PIO, Central District furnished the following reply vide letter dated 13.11.2019.
A copy of order dated 29.05.2017 issued by the Addl. DCP, Central District - Sh. S K Singh has been sent by the Respondent indicating the orders issued for destruction of record of complaints upto 2013, as per extant guidelines. Relevant file notings in this regard had been furnished by Respondent and form part of record.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 17.11.2019. The FAA, Central District vide order dated 23.12.2019 disposed off the first appeal stating that the reply provided by the PIO is correct, hence no intervention is required in the matter.
Page 20 of 22Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 12.05.2021 have been submitted by the Appellant reiterating the facts mentioned in the Second Appeal and re-emphasising the decisions relied upon in support of his contention that mere pendency of investigation is not enough for seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Both parties are duly represented during hearing and reiterate their respective contentions.
Decision:
Perusal of records of this case reveals, it is almost in the nature of a non- compliance case relating to the cases: CIC/DEP0L/A/2017/186483 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/186484 dated 29.01.2018. It is noted that the Respondent has stated in their purported compliance report dated 01.03.2018 that the records sought by the Appellant were destroyed vide order dated 29.05.2017. However, it is not clear why the same facts were not placed before the Commission's hearing dated 15.01.2018 and how could documents which are subject matter of an ongoing proceedings (before the CIC) be destroyed. The RTI applications had been filed by the Appellant in 2016 and the matter was pending till the Second Appeal was adjudicated in 2018.
Considering the aforesaid a clear lapse on the part of the Respondent, explanation is called from PIO-Sh. Rohit Meena, Addl DCP, Central District- for the above mentioned destruction of records, despite pendency of a matter and why such facts were not clearly brought out before the Commission during the hearing held on 15.01.2018. The entire sequence of events reveals scant regard for the law on the part of the Respondent and the PIO must explain why appropriate penal action should not be taken against him for such violation of the law. Explanation from the PIO must reach the Commission by 15.08.2021, failing which necessary action for non-compliance will be initiated suo motu.
The appeals are disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) Page 21 of 22 S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 22 of 22