Central Information Commission
Pardeep vs Delhi Police on 3 August, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/151204
Shri Pardeep ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, Dwarka Sector ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: ACP-HQ Ravinder Singh and
Inspector Ajay Sharma
Date of Hearing : 02.08.2021
Date of Decision : 03.08.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.08.2019
PIO replied on : 19.09.2019 & 16.10.2019
First Appeal filed on : 21.09.2019
First Appellate Order on : 03.10.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 24.10.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant had filed a complaint dated 23.06.2019 at police station Najafgarh about abortion of a child. Consequently he filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2019 seeking a certified copy of the document on the basis of which the enquiry officer concluded that the abortion had been done with the consent of the complainant.
The PIO/Addl. DCP, Dwarka Distt., vide letter dated 19.09.2019 replied as under:-
Enquiry Report mentioned in the PIO's reply is enclosed with the reply.Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.09.2019. The FAA/DCP, Dwarka Distt., vide order dated 03.10.2019 directed the CPIO/DWD to reconsider the RTI request filed by the Appellant and provide the requisite information to the Appellant as per available record within 2 weeks.
In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO/ADCP, Dwarka Distt., vide letter dated 16.10.2019 replied as under:-
Still dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO/Addl. DCP, Dwarka District
- Shri Shankar Chaudhary vide letter dated 26.09.2021, reiterating the above facts.
Written submissions have been received from the Appellant reiterating his request.
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 participated and are duly heard through audio conference. During the course of hearing the Appellant stated that false information had been furnished by the Respondent because he had never consented to the abortion by his wife.
The Respondents - Shri Jagtar Singh and Shri Ajay Sharma initially kept passing the onus on each other regarding attending the hearing, thereby wasting the time of the commission. Later ACP Ravinder Singh attended the audio conference and stated that whatever information about the incident was available on police records, had been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Upon examination of the facts of the case, it transpires that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, pertaining to records as held in the custody of the public authority, has already been furnished to the Appellant.Page 2 of 3
Thus, Respondent had acted within the purview of the RTI Act. However, the confusion among the police officials about attending the hearing through audio conference and their misleading comments adversely impacted the proceedings. The Respondent is cautioned to ensure that such lapses should not recur and information about the relevant official, not below the rank of ACP, who will represent the Respondent must be provided well in advance to facilitate the hearing process.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is disposed off with no further directions.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3