Central Information Commission
Ajay Gupta vs Delhi Police on 25 February, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi-110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal/Complaint Nos.:
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/639310 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658121
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658403 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/659823
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/659825 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/661235
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656540 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656668
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656669 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656670
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/657603 CIC/DEPOL/C/2019/601421
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/636214 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/640276
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/657248 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/600533
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658744 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/644800
Shri Ajay Gupta ... अपीलकता/Appellant
New Delhi ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
(1) PIO/Addl.Dy.CP, South East Distt. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
(2) PIO/ACP Sec II
Economic Offences Wing, PS Mandir Marg,
New Delhi
(3)PIO/ACP Sec V
Economic Offences Wing, PS Mandir Marg,
New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 23.02.2021
Date of Decision : 25.02.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/639310
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658121
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/659823
Page 1 of 29
Since these matters pertain to the same parties, they are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd
No. on appeal Appeal/Complaint
received on
639310 19.02.2019 20.03.2019 25.03.2019 23.04.2019 29.04.2019
658121 14.08.2019 18.09.2019 19.09.2019 16.10.2019 27.11.2019
659823 24.08.2019 04.10.2019 09.10.2019 19.11.2019 14.12.2019
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/639310
Vide RTI application dated 19.02.2019, the Appellant sought following details
of complaint filed with P.S.Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi by him
against Shri Vinay Gupta, Anjali Gupta and Ors vide DD No.49B dated
26.09.2018:
1. Total Number of Copies of the complaint issued to various RTI Applicants
as per your records.
2. Details of name and addresses of the applicants to whom the copy of the
complaint has been issued as per your records.
3. Whether the copy of the complaint has been issued to the Accused Varun
Gupta vide RTI. If yes, copy of the RTI application and the response
issued by you is sought as per your records.
4. Please provide date, when the copy of the said complaint has been
provided to Accused Varun Gupta as per your records.
5. Whether the copy of the complaint has been issued to the Accused Anjali
Gupta vide RTI. If yes, copy of the RTI application and the response
issued by you is sought as per your records.
6. Please provide date, when the copy of the said complaint has been
provided to Accused Anjali Gupta as per your records.
7. Whether the copy of the complaint has been issued to the Accused Vinay
Gupta vide RTI. If yes, copy of the RTI application and the response
issued by you is sought as per your records.
8. Please provide date, when the copy of the said complaint has been
provided to Accused Vinay Gupta as per your records.
9. Whether the copy of the complaint has been issued to Accused Vivek
Gupta vide RTI. If yes, copy of the RTI application and the response
issued by you is sought as per your records.
10. Please provide date, when the copy of the said complaint has been
provided to Accused Vivek Gupta as per your records.
Page 2 of 29
11. Whether the copy of the complaint has been issued to Accused Arun
Gupta vide RTI. If yes, copy of the RTI application and the response
issued by you is sought as per your records.
12. Please provide date, when the copy of the said complaint has been
provided to Accused Arun Gupta as per your records.
13. Whether the copy of the complaint has been issued to Accused Ajay
Vinayak vide RTI. If yes, copy of the RTI application and the response
issued by you is sought as per your records.
14. Please provide date, when the copy of the said complaint has been
provided to Accused Ajay Vinayak as per your records.
15. Copies of all other RTI applications received and responses issued by you
with respect to information in the said complaint is sought as per your
records.
16. In case of your inability to provide the same, copy of the protocol / notice
/ memo defining the procedure to obtain the above copy is sought.
17. The name with complete contact details of the appropriate authority in
case you are unable to provide the same.
The PIO cum Addl DCP South East District vide letter dated 20.03.2019
informed the Appellant that no such record is maintained at Police Station
level. Hence, the requisite information cannot be provided.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal
dated 25.03.2019. FAA vide order dated 23.04.2019 upheld the reply of PIO.
He further observed that the information regarding any complaint can be
provided to either complainant or alleged person in the same complaint as per
RTI Act. 2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission
with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658121
Vide RTI application dated 14.08.2019 the Appellant sought the following
information from PIO, Delhi Police, Office of the DCP (South East District),
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi regarding the FIR no. 223/18 registered with the P.S.
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi - 110020 against him -
1. Please provide information on whether the approval was sought from the
DCP (South East) before registration of the FIR 223/18 as per your
records.
2. Please provide name of the DCP from whom the approval was sought /
would have been sought as per your records
Page 3 of 29
3. Please provide Date when the file was forwarded to the DCP for approval
of the FIR 223/18 as per your records
4. Please provide Date when the approval was granted by the DCP for
registration of the FIR 223/18 as per your records
5. Please provide information on circumstances / conditions / instances
under which an approval needs to be sought from the DCP before
registration of an FIR at Local Police Station. Copy of any such Standing
Order / notices / inter-office memos etc is sought as per your records
6. Please provide information on whether the approval was sought from the
ACP before registration of the FIR 223/18 as per your records
7. Please provide Date when the file was forwarded to the ACP for approval
of the FIR 223/18 as per your records
8. Please provide Date when the approval was granted by the ACP for
registration of the FIR 223/18 as per your records
9. Please provide Date when the registration of FIR 223/18 was approved
by SHO as per your records
10. Please provide details of the authorities including ASI, SI, Inspectors,
SHO, ACP, DCP who had approved registration of the FIR 223/18 as per
your records.
The PIO cum Addl DCP South East District vide letter dated 18.09.2019
furnished point wise information to the Appellant, as available on record.
Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on
19.09.2019. The FAA vide order dated 16.10.2019 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission
with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/659823
Vide RTI application dated 24.08.2019, the Appellant sought the following
information from PIO, The Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Bldg, ITO, New
Delhi with regard to a complaint filed by him against Corrupt Police Officials of
DCP (South East District), SHO Mukesh Walia and Ors. The Addendum to the
Complaint was sent to Commissioner of Police vide Speed Post
ED292608515IN dated 28.07.2019 which was delivered on 29.07.2019 at
16:07:44.
1. Please provide Information as per your records, the designated authority
/ies which can initiate investigation on allegations of Corruption on a
Police officer of a rank of DCP & higher as per your records. Copy of any
Standing Order / inter-office memos / notices etc in this regard is sought
as per records
2. Please provide information whether a corruption complaint against a
Police officer of the rank of an SHO can be investigated / resolved /
concluded by an officer of Sub-Inspector rank as per your records. Copy
Page 4 of 29
of any Standing Order / inter-office memos / notices etc in this regard is
sought as per records
3. Details of the Diary Entry No. / Inward mail entry details for the said
Complaint
4. Copy of the Duly Attested Complaint with the stamp of Acknowledgement
is sought
5. Details of the authority / official to whom the complaint has been
assigned with contact details is sought as per your records
6. The present status of the complaint as per your records.
7. Copy of any report / memo received from any department regarding the
said complaint is sought as per your records
8. Copy of any notices issued to any department / officials with reference to
the complaint is sought as per your records.
9. If the complaint has been forwarded to another department / authority /
Govt. Office, the details of the outgoing post no. and date to track the
complaint further is sought.
10. Copy/Details of any Departmental Enquiry initiated against the
concerned officials as per your records is sought
11. In case the complaint has been closed, copy of the closure report with all
annexures is sought as per your records.
The PIO cum Addl DCP South East District vide letter dated 04.10.2019
furnished point wise information to the Appellant, as available on record.
Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on
09.10.2019. The FAA vide order dated 19.11.2019 directed the PIO/Addl.
DCP/SED to provide fresh information with regard to point No. 04, 07, 08 and
11 of RTI application. In compliance of FAO, PIO vide letter dated 09.12.2019
furnished information with regard to point Nos. 4, 7, 8 and 11 as available on
record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission
with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant and his representative Shri Ativ Gupta, who is the Appellant's son, participated in the hearing through video conference. The Appellant's representative specifically referred to the RTI application under consideration in CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658121 and stated that complete information was concealed from the Appellant. He referred to an extract of vigilance report by ACP, Vigilance, Delhi Police that clearly stated that the case was registered after getting the approval from the DCP, SED.
Page 5 of 29The Respondent was represented by Shri Brijender Singh, ACP, Sarita Vihar, Shri Santan Singh, SHO, Okhla, Shri Pradeep Rawat, ATO, PS Okhla, Shri Balram/ Inspector, O/o DCP, South East Delhi through video conference. Shri Brijender Singh stated that after registration of FIR/ Complaint only a copy of the same is provided to the Complainant. However, information regarding approval for registration of a case is an internal document which is not disclosed. As regards the RTI application under consideration in Appeal NO CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/659823, Shri Singh stated that the document is not available with them and should be available with the o/o the ACP, Vigilance HQ.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission at the outset observes that satisfactory information with regard to the RTI application under consideration in Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/639310, an appropriate response has been provided. As regards, the RTI application under consideration in Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658121, the Commission is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the Respondent that being an internal document approval for registration of case cannot be provided as the same has to be substantiated by citing any of the exemption clauses u/s 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission directs Shri Brijender Singh, ACP, Sarita Vihar to re-examine the said RTI application and provide a point wise response to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 31.03.2021. Similarly with regard to the RTI application under consideration in CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/659823, the Commission directs the Respondent to transfer the same to the ACP, Vigilance, HQ by 15.03.2021 so that the information can be furnished to the Appellant.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658403 (5) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/659825 (6) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/661235 Since these matters pertain to the same parties and information is denied in all matters u/s 8 (1) h) of the RTI Act, 2005 or on the ground that the inquiry in the matter is pending, they are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd
Page 6 of 29
No. on appeal Appeal/Complaint
received on
658403 27.09.2019 28.10.2019 06.11.2019 26.11.2019 30.11.2019
659825 20.09.2019 22.10.2019 26.10.2019 20.11.2019 14.12.2019
661235 05.10.2019 08.11.2019 13.11.2019 26.12.2019 30.12.2019
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658403
Vide RTI application dated 27.09.2019, the Appellant sought the following information from PIO, Office of the DCP South East District, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi regarding the complaint filed by him against Vinay Gupta, Anjali Gupta and Ors. Vide DD 49B dated 26.09.18 at P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Phase-1, New Delhi:
1. The Present status of the complaint as per records.
2. If the FIR has been registered, the copy of the FIR is sought as per records.
3. Please provide information on number of statements recorded from the Accused Vinay Gupta in the said complaint since inception
4. Please provide information on number of statements recorded from the Accused Vinay Gupta in the said complaint since registration of FIR
5. Please provide information on number of statements recorded from the Accused Arun Gupta in the said complaint since inception
6. Please provide information on number of statements recorded from the Accused Arun Gupta in the said complaint since registration of FIR
7. Please provide information on number of statements recorded from the Accused Varun Gupta in the said complaint since inception
8. Please provide information on number of statements recorded from the Accused Varun Gupta in the said complaint since registration of FIR
9. Please provide information on number of statements recorded from the Accused Vivek Gupta in the said complaint since inception
10. Please provide information on number of statements recorded from the Accused Vivek Gupta in the said complaint since registration of FIR
11. Please provide information on number of statements recorded from the Accused Ajay Vinayak in the said complaint since inception
12. Please provide information on number of statements recorded from the Accused Ajay Vinayak in the said complaint since registration of FIR
13. Please provide name of Accused Persons in the FIR The PIO cum Addl DCP South East District vide letter dated 28.10.2019 informed the Appellant that the said complaint is pending enquiry at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, hence the same cannot be provided at this stage. Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 06.11.2019. The FAA vide order dated 26.11.2019 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 7 of 29CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/659825 Vide RTI application dated 20.09.2019 the Appellant sought the following information from the Police Station Okhla Industrial Area Phase-1 regarding a complaint filed by him against Vinay Gupta, Anjali Gupta and Ors. Vide DD 49B dated 26.09.18:
1. Copy of all the statements of complainant Ajay Gupta obtained in the complaint as per records
2. Details of the Police Officer/s who recorded statements of Ajay Gupta as per records. Please provide clear details as to which statement was obtained by which Police Officer
3. Copy of Orders / instructions / inter office memos instructing / authorizing the Police Officer/s to obtain the statement in the Complaint is sought. Copy of all orders / instructions / inter office memos is sought
4. Present status of the Complaint as per records The PIO cum Addl DCP South East District vide letter dated 22.10.2019 informed the Appellant that the said complaint is pending for enquiry at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 26.10.2019. The FAA vide order dated 20.11.2019 directed the PIO/Addl.DCP/SED to provide fresh point wise information to the Appellant. In compliance of FAO, PIO vide letter dated 07.12.2019 furnished a fresh point wise reply to the Appellant.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/661235 Vide RTI application dated 05.10.2019 the Appellant sought the following information from PIO, PS Okhla industrial area phase 1 New Delhi 110020 regarding a complaint filed by him against Vinay Gupta and others vide DD no. 49B dated 26.9.18.
1. Please provide information on whether the copy of the FIR no. 330/19 registered against the said complaint has been provided to the complainant. Date when the copy of the FIR has been provided is sought as per records.
2. Please provide attested acknowledged copy of the statement of the complainant post registration of the FIR 330/19 as per records.
3. Please provide copy of all written submissions by the accused Vinay Gupta with respect to the said complaint submitted with the PS OIA duly diarised between 20.9.2019 till 24.9.2019 before registration of the FIR 330/19 as per records.
4. Please provide copy of all approvals obtained from senior officers approving registration of the FIR 330/19 as stated in the last line of the FIR as per records.
5. Please provide copy of all reports prepared by all investigation officers in the said complaint before registration of the FIR 330/19 as per records.
Page 8 of 29The PIO cum Addl DCP South East District vide letter dated 08.11.2019 denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the complaint is pending investigation and disclosure of information/documents would impede the process of investigation. Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 13.11.2019. The FAA vide order dated 26.12.2019 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant and his representative Shri Ativ Gupta, who is the Appellant's son, participated in the hearing through video conference. The Appellant's representative stated that the information sought was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (h) as mere investigation/ inquiry in a matter cannot be ground for denial of information.
The Respondent was represented by Shri Brijender Singh, ACP, Sarita Vihar, Shri Santan Singh, SHO, Okhla, Shri Pradeep Rawat, ATO, PS Okhla, Shri Balram/ Inspector, O/o DCP, South East Delhi through video conference. Shri Brijender Singh stated that at present the investigation/ inquiry in the matter is still pending and that subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet the information may be obtained by the Appellant from the concerned Court. However, during the hearing, Shri Singh however clarified that certain documents such as the copy of the FIRs/ Complaints filed by the Appellant, generic information regarding the number of statements recorded as sought in the RTI under consideration in Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658403 may be provided to the Appellant, if so directed by the Commission.
Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of available records, the Commission directs Shri Brijender Singh, ACP, Sarita Vihar to provide a revised response to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 31.03.2021.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Page 9 of 29(7) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656540 (8) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656669 (9) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656670 (10) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/657603 Since these matters pertain to the same parties and the information sought is of a similar nature, they are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd
No. on Appeal/Co
mplaint
received on
656540 26.08.2019 23.09.2019 27.09.2019 25.10.2019 11.11.2019
656669 26.08.2019 23.09.2019 27.09.2019 25.10.2019 12.11.2019
656670 26.08.2019 23.09.2019 27.09.2019 25.10.2019 12.11.2019
657603 26.08.2019 23.09.2019 27.09.2019 25.10.2019 11.11.2019
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656540
Vide RTI application dated 23.08.2019 the Appellant sought the following information from PIO, Economic Offences Wing, Office of the DCP regarding an update on the online complaint filed by him against Insp. Jitender Singh:
1. Please provide Information as per your records, the designated authority /ies which can initiate investigation on allegations of Corruption on a Police officer of a rank of Inspector as per your records. Copy of any Standing Order / inter-office memos / notices etc in this regard is sought as per record.
2. Details of the Diary Entry No. / Inward mail entry details for the said Complaint.
3. Copy of the Duly Attested Complaint with the stamp of Acknowledgement is sought.
4. Details of the authority / official to whom the complaint has been assigned with contact details is sought as per your records.
5. The present status of the complaint as per your records.
6. Copy of any report / memo received from any department regarding the said complaint is sought as per your records.
7. Copy of any notices issued to any department / officials with reference to the complaint is sought as per your records.
8. If the complaint has been forwarded to another department / authority / Govt. Office, the details of the outgoing post no. and date to track the complaint further is sought.
9. Copy / Details of any Departmental Enquiry initiated against the concerned officials as per your records is sought.
10. In case the complaint has been closed, copy of the closure report with all annexures is sought as per your records.Page 10 of 29
11. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 1, i.e., whether Manually Filed ITRs of the firm Dripless Faucets India have been obtained from the Income Tax Office as per your records.
12. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 2, i.e., whether statements of Arun Gupta with regard to the authenticity of his signatures on the Dissolution Deed has been recorded as per your records.
13. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 2, i.e., whether statements of Vinay Gupta with regard to the authenticity of his signatures on the Dissolution Deed has been recorded as per your records.
14. In case of your inability to provide the same, copy of the protocol / notice / memo defining the procedure to obtain the above copy is sought.
15. The name with complete contact details of the appropriate authority in case you are unable to provide the same.
The PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 23.09.2019 furnished point wise information to the Appellant, as available on record. Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 30.09.2019. The FAA vide order dated 25.10.2019 directed the PIO/Sec-
II/EOW to reconsider the RTI application and provide an appropriate and justified reply to the Appellant. In compliance with the FAA's order, the PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 04.11.2019 provided a point wise response to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656669 Vide RTI application dated 23.08.2019, the Appellant sought the following information from PIO, Additional Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi with regard to his complaint against Insp. Jitender Singh vide letter dated 17.08.2019:
1. Please provide Information as per your records, the designated authority/ies which can initiate investigation on allegations of Corruption on a Police officer of a rank of Inspector as per your records.
Copy of any Standing Order / inter-office memos / notices etc in this regard is sought as per records
2. Details of the Diary Entry No. / Inward mail entry details for the said Complaint
3. Copy of the Duly Attested Complaint with the stamp of Acknowledgement is sought
4. Details of the authority / official to whom the complaint has been assigned with contact details is sought as per your records
5. The present status of the complaint as per your records.
Page 11 of 296. Copy of any report / memo received from any department regarding the said complaint is sought as per your records
7. Copy of any notices issued to any department / officials with reference to the complaint is sought as per your records.
8. If the complaint has been forwarded to another department / authority / Govt. Office, the details of the outgoing post no. and date to track the complaint further is sought.
9. Copy / Details of any Departmental Enquiry initiated against the concerned officials as per your records is sought
10. In case the complaint has been closed, copy of the closure report with all annexures is sought as per your records.
11. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 1, i.e., whether Manually Filed ITRs of the firm Dripless Faucets India have been obtained from the Income Tax Office as per your records
12. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 2, i.e., whether statements of Arun Gupta with regard to the authenticity of his signatures on the Dissolution Deed has been recorded as per your records
13. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 2, i.e., whether statements of Vinay Gupta with regard to the authenticity of his signatures on the Dissolution Deed has been recorded as per your records
14. In case of your inability to provide the same, copy of the protocol / notice / memo defining the procedure to obtain the above copy is sought
15. The name with complete contact details of the appropriate authority in case you are unable to provide the same.
The PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 23.09.2019 furnished point wise information to the Appellant, as available on record.
Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 27.09.2019. The FAA vide order dated 25.10.2019 directed the PIO/Sec- II/EOW to reconsider the RTI application and provide an appropriate and justified reply to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of FAA, the PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 04.11.2019 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656670 Vide RTI application dated 23.08.2019 addressed to PIO, Special Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi regarding complaint against Insp. Jitender Singh, the Appellant sought the following information:
Page 12 of 291. Please provide Information as per your records, the designated authority/ies which can initiate investigation on allegations of Corruption on a Police officer of a rank of Inspector as per your records.
Copy of any Standing Order / inter-office memos / notices etc in this regard is sought as per records
2. Details of the Diary Entry No. / Inward mail entry details for the said Complaint
3. Copy of the Duly Attested Complaint with the stamp of Acknowledgement is sought
4. Details of the authority / official to whom the complaint has been assigned with contact details is sought as per your records
5. The present status of the complaint as per your records.
6. Copy of any report / memo received from any department regarding the said complaint is sought as per your records
7. Copy of any notices issued to any department / officials with reference to the complaint is sought as per your records.
8. If the complaint has been forwarded to another department / authority / Govt. Office, the details of the outgoing post no. and date to track the complaint further is sought.
9. Copy / Details of any Departmental Enquiry initiated against the concerned officials as per your records is sought
10. In case the complaint has been closed, copy of the closure report with all annexures is sought as per your records.
11. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 1, i.e., whether Manually Filed ITRs of the firm Dripless Faucets India have been obtained from the Income Tax Office as per your records
12. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 2, i.e., whether statements of Arun Gupta with regard to the authenticity of his signatures on the Dissolution Deed has been recorded as per your records
13. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 2, i.e., whether statements of Vinay Gupta with regard to the authenticity of his signatures on the Dissolution Deed has been recorded as per your records
14. In case of your inability to provide the same, copy of the protocol/notice /memo defining the procedure to obtain the above copy is sought
15. The name with complete contact details of the appropriate authority in case you are unable to provide the same The PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 23.09.2019 furnished point wise information to the Appellant, as available on record. Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 27.09.2019. The FAA vide order dated 25.10.2019 directed the PIO/Sec- II/EOW to reconsider the RTI application and provide an appropriate and justified reply to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of FAA, the PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 04.11.2019 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Page 13 of 29Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/657603 Vide RTI application dated 23.08.2019, the Appellant sought the following information from PIO, Commissioner of Police, MSO Bldg, PHQ Headquarters regarding complaint filed against Jitender Singh :
1. Please provide Information as per your records, the designated authority / ies which can initiate investigation on allegations of Corruption on a Police officer of a rank of Inspector as per your records. Copy of any Standing Order / inter-office memos / notices etc in this regard is sought as per records
2. Details of the Diary Entry No. / Inward mail entry details for the said Complaint
3. Copy of the Duly Attested Complaint with the stamp of Acknowledgement is sought
4. Details of the authority / official to whom the complaint has been assigned with contact details is sought as per your records
5. The present status of the complaint as per your records.
6. Copy of any report / memo received from any department regarding the said complaint is sought as per your records
7. Copy of any notices issued to any department / officials with reference to the complaint is sought as per your records.
8. If the complaint has been forwarded to another department / authority / Govt. Office, the details of the outgoing post no. and date to track the complaint further is sought.
9. Copy / Details of any Departmental Enquiry initiated against the concerned officials as per your records is sought
10. In case the complaint has been closed, copy of the closure report with all annexures is sought as per your records.
11. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 1, i.e., whether Manually Filed ITRs of the firm Dripless Faucets India have been obtained from the Income Tax Office as per your records
12. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 2, i.e., whether statements of Arun Gupta with regard to the authenticity of his signatures on the Dissolution Deed has been recorded as per your records
13. Please provide information whether the relief sought vide point 2, i.e., whether statements of Vinay Gupta with regard to the authenticity of his signatures on the Dissolution Deed has been recorded as per your records
14. Incase of your inability to provide the same, copy of the protocol / notice / memo defining the procedure to obtain the above copy is sought
15. The name with complete contact details of the appropriate authority in case you are unable to provide the same Page 14 of 29 The PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 23.09.2019 furnished point wise information to the Appellant, as available on record. Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 27.09.2019. The FAA vide order dated 25.10.2019 directed the PIO/Sec-
II/EOW to reconsider the RTI application and provide an appropriate and justified reply to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of FAA, the PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 04.11.2019 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant and his representative Shri Ativ Gupta, who is the Appellant's son, participated in the hearing through video conference. The Appellant's representative stated that complete information to their satisfaction was not provided by the Respondent.
The Respondent was represented by Shri Anil Samota, ACP, EOW, Section-II, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector and Shri Jitender, Inspector through video conference. Shri Samota stated that complaints of similar nature are under consideration in all the 4 RTI applications herein and that investigation/ inquiry on all such complaints has since been completed. Hence, a revised point wise reply can be provided to the Appellant at this stage.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the latest updated factual position in the matter, the Commission directs Shri Anil Samota, ACP, EOW, Section-II to provide a consolidated revised point wise response to the Appellant by 31.03.2021 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
(11) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/656668 Vide RTI application dated 23.08.2019 the Appellant sought the following information from PIO, Economic Offences Wing, Office of the DCP Sh. PK Mishra regarding an update on the online complaint filed by him against Insp. Jitender Singh :
Page 15 of 291. Copy of the Closure report with Full Annexures pertaining to the said complaint as per records
2. Name with complete details of the DCP / SHO or any other official who had investigated the said complaint as per records
3. Copy of the duly attested complaint as per your records
4. Please provide information on whether the statement of Complainant was recorded in the said Complaint against the Corrupt Insp. Jitender Singh as per records
5. Please provide information on protocol to be followed by concerned officer for resolving complaint/ grievances filed on Listening Post as per your records
6. Please provide information whether the action required vide Point 2 i.e. clarifications on whereabouts of my statement dated 10.10.18 was inquired upon and details provided to the Complainant as per records
7. Please provide information whether the action required vide Point 3 i.e. Copy of the closure report vide which LG grievance id 2019006473 was closed by SHO/EOW was inquired upon and details provided to the Complainant as per records
8. Please provide details of the authority responsible for verifying the closure report before upload on the Listening Post as per records
9. Please provide details whether the closure report was duly approved by DCP PK Mishra before upload as per records
10. Please provide details of the higher authority responsible for initiating vigilatory action against an officer of the rank of SHO at EOW as per your records
11. Incase of your inability to provide the same, copy of the protocol / notice / memo defining the procedure to obtain the above copy is sought
12. The name with complete contact details of the appropriate authority in case you are unable to provide the same The PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 23.09.2019 furnished point wise information to the Appellant, as available on record. Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 27.09.2019. The FAA vide order dated 25.10.2019 directed the PIO/Sec-
II/EOW to reconsider the RTI application and provide an appropriate and justified reply to the Appellant. In compliance with the FAA's order, the PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 04.11.2019 provided a point wise response to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Page 16 of 29The Appellant and his representative Shri Ativ Gupta who is the Appellant's son, participated in the hearing through video conference. The Appellant's representative stated that satisfactory information was not provided by the Respondent.
The Respondent was represented by Shri Anil Samota, ACP, EOW, Section-II, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector and Shri Jitender, Inspector through video conference. The Respondent stated that the information as per available record has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of available record, the Commission is of the view that adequate information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(12) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/601421 Vide RTI application dated 04.12.2019 sought following information with regard to his complaint filed with PIO/Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Section- II/EOW vide diary no. D-5245/DCP/EOW dated 13.08.2018:
1. Since the complaint has been FILED, please provide copy of the complete file with notings as per records;
2. Since the complaint has been FILED, please provide copy of the clarification / statement obtained from Vinay Gupta regarding his signatures on the allegedly forged Dissolution Deed as per records.
3. Since the complaint has been FILED, please provide copy of all the clarification / statements obtained from Vinay Gupta as per records.
4. Since the complaint has been FILED, please provide copy of the clarification / statement obtained from Arun Gupta regarding his signatures on the allegedly forged Dissolution Deed as per records.
5. Since the complaint has been FILED, please provide copy of all the clarification / statement obtained from Arun Gupta as per records.
6. Since the complaint has been FILED, please provide copy of the investigation report pertaining to the Forged Stamp Paper as alleged by the Complainant as per records.
7. Since the complaint has been FILED, please provide copy of the investigation report pertaining to the Fake Notary as alleged by the Complainant as per records.
8. Since the complaint has been FILED, please provide copy of the investigation report pertaining to the ITR filed by the Alleged Firm Page 17 of 29 Dripless Faucets India even after dissolution as alleged by the Complainant as per records.
9. Since the complaint has been FILED, please provide copy of the complete set of documents obtained from DDA along with copy of notices issued and responses received by the IO as per records.
10. Please provide copy of the closure report in the complaint as per records.
11. Since the complaint has been FILED, please provide copy of all the statements obtained from the Accused and witnesses in the complaint relied upon by the IO as per records.
The PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section II, EOW vide letter dated 27.12.2019 informed the Complainant that sought information is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts merging during the hearing In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Complainant and his representative Shri Ativ Gupta, who is the Appellant's son, participated in the hearing through video conference. The Complainant's representative stated that the information sought was incorrectly denied in the present matter u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 vide letter dated 27.12.2019. In his complaint, the Complainant had also mentioned that the said reply was also backdated as the same was couriered to him on 11.01.2020. Furthermore, in reference to the instant RTI application he had received another reply no 892 dated 23.12.2019 which was irrelevant. Thus, he submitted that there was grave irregularity and discrepancy in sending replies to information seekers.
The Respondent was represented by Shri Anil Samota, ACP, EOW, Section-II, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector and Shri Jitender, Inspector through video conference. Shri Samota skirted around the issues raised by the Commission and the Complainant during the hearing and could not justify the reason for claiming Section 8 (1) (e) to deny information on all the points raised in the RTI application. However, Shri Samota stated during the hearing that the copy of the closure report was provided to the Complainant which the Complainant disputed on the ground that the same was not a detailed closure report but only intimation for closure of the matter.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that the reply provided by the CPIO was devoid of any reason and justification. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 states that where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. Despite repeated Page 18 of 29 opportunities granted to the Respondent present during the hearing neither could he nor did the CPIO responding to the RTI application justify their position as to how the disclosure of information would be exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In this context, the Commission refers to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, wherein it was held as under:
"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) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case."
Thus, in the light of the above observations, the Commission directs Shri Anil Samota, ACP, EOW, Section-II, to show cause to the Commission by way of a written submission explaining why penal action u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him for obstructing the flow of information. The above mentioned order be complied with by 31.03.2021.
With the above direction, the instant Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.
(13) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/636214 (14) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/600533 Since both these matters pertain to the same parties and information is denied in both matters u/s 8 (1) h) of the RTI Act, 2005, they are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd
No. on Appeal/Co
mplaint
received on
636214 20.11.2018 08.03.2019 11.02.2019 18.03.2019 18.03.2019
600533 08.11.2019 19.11.2019 04.12.2019 03.01.2020 06.01.2020
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/636214
Vide RTI application dated 29.11.2018 sought the following information with reference to his complaint filed with the DCP Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police, Mandir Marg:
1) Total No. of notices issued to Vinay Gupta
2) Total No. of notices issued to Atul Sawhney
Page 19 of 29
3) Total No. of notices issued to Anil Sawhney
4) Total no. of notices issued to the complainant Ajay Gupta
5) The Copy of the Statement of Mr. Vinay Gupta (The Accused)
6) The Copy of the Documents submitted along with the response by Mr.
Vinay Gupta
7) The Copy of Statement of Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta
8) The Copy of Statement of Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta
9) The Copy of Statement of Mr. Anil Sahai
10) The Copy of Statement of Mrs. Asha Sahai
11) The Copy of the GPA (As enclosed in the file seized from DDA records) dated 8.05.1996 by Mr. Anil Sawhney & others in favour of Mr. Vinay Gupta
12) Copy of the Agreement to Sell (As enclosed in the file seized from DDA records) between Mr. Anil Sawhney & Mr. Vinay Gupta dated 8.05.1996
13) Copy of the Receipt for Rs.1,40,000/- (As enclosed in the file seized from DDA records)
14) Copy of the statement of Mr. Anil Sawhney as per your records
15) Copy of the summons issued to Mr. Vinay Gupta (The accused). If no summons were issued kindly specify.
16) Copy of any other statement received from any witnesses, or any other person associated with the case.
17) Copy of the Action Taken Report is sought.
The PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section V, EOW vide letter dated 08.03.2019 informed the Appellant that requisite information is barred by the provisions of Sec 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, hence the same cannot be provided.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.02.2019. FAA vide order dated 18.03.2019 found that the Appellant was not provided requisite reply within stipulated time and directed the PIO/Sec-V/EOW to reconsider the RTI application and provide an appropriate reply to the Appellant. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/600533 Vide RTI application dated 29.10.2019 the Appellant sought the following information from PIO/ DCP, Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police, Mandir Marg. New Delhi registered vide FIR No. 05/19(Copy Enclosed):
1. Total No. of notices issued to Vinay Gupta after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
2. Total No. of statements obtained from Vinay Gupta after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
3. Total No. of notices issued to Anil Sawhney after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019 Page 20 of 29
4. Total No. of statements obtained from Anil Sawhney after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
5. Total No. of notices issued to Atul Sawhney after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
6. Total No. of statements obtained from Atul Sawhney after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
7. Please provide information, as per my rights as a complainant, whether the Originals of the allegedly Forged Agreement To sell has been seized from the Accused Vinay Gupta as per your records. Date of Seizure is sought as per records
8. Please provide information, as per my rights as a complainant, whether the Originals of the allegedly Forged Cash Receipt has been seized from the Accused Vinay Gupta as per your records. Date of Seizure is sought as per records
9. Please provide information, as per my rights as a complainant, whether the Originals of the Forged General Power of Attorney has been seized from the Accused Vinay Gupta as per your records. Date of Seizure is sought as per records
10. Copy of all seizure memos in the case is sought as per your records The PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section V, EOW vide letter dated 19.11.2019 informed the Appellant that the sought information is barred by the provisions of Sec 8(1)(H) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the same would impede the process of investigation. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal on 04.12.2019. The FAA vide order dated 03.01.2020 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts merging during the hearing In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant and his representative Shri Ativ Gupta, who is the Appellant's son,participated in the hearing through video conference. The Appellant's representative stated that the information sought was incorrectly denied in the present matter u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the same officer had earlier provided similar information vide letter dated 25.08.2020 a copy of which was enclosed by the Appellant with his written submission. He further cited another reply dated 06.05.2019 sent by the ACP cum PIO, Section II, EOW wherein the date of sending notice to Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta which was also a query in the instant matter was disclosed. Hence, he prayed for allowing disclosure of information in the present matter.
The Respondent was represented by Shri Nageen Kaushik, ACP, EOW, Section-5 and Shri Anand Prakash, SI, EOQ, Section- 5 through video conference. Shri Page 21 of 29 Kaushik stated that the reply sent in the instant matter can be distinguished from the earlier replies as in the present matter, the investigation is still under progress. On a being queried regarding the reason why exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) was claimed for generic queries such as the total number of notices issued to the Appellant, Shri Vinay Gupta, Shri Atul Sawhney and Shri Anil Sawhney, no satisfactory response was offered by Shri Kaushik who agreed to re-examine the RTI application and provide a point wise response to the Appellant.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs Shri Nageen Kaushik, ACP, EOW, Section-5 to re-examine the RTI application and provide point wise response to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The above mentioned direction should be complied with by 31.03.2021 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
(15) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/640276 The Appellant vide RTI application dated 19.02.2019 sought the following information with regard to his complaint against Vinay Gupta, Anil & Atul Sawhney filed with the DCP, Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police, Mandir Marg. New Delhi vide DD No. D-4050 dated 17.05.2017 registered vide FIR No. 0005 dated 28.01.2019 pending with SI Shiv Dev Singh.
1. Total Number of Copies of the complaint issued to various RTI Applicants as per your records
2. Details of name and addresses of the applicants to whom the copy of the complaint has been issued as per your records
3. Whether the copy of the complaint has been issued to the Accused Vinay Gupta vide RTI. If yes, copy of the RTI application and the response issued by you is sought as per your records
4. Please provide date, when the copy of the said complaint has been provided to Accused Vinay Gupta
5. Whether the copy of the complaint has been issued to the Accused Atul Sawhney vide RTI. If yes, copy of the RTI application and the response issued by you is sought as per your records
6. Please provide date, when the copy of the said complaint has been provided to Accused Atul Sawhney
7. Whether the copy of the complaint has been issued to Anil Sawhney vide RTI. If yes, copy of the RTI application and the response issued by you is sought as per your records Page 22 of 29
8. Please provide date, when the copy of the said complaint has been provided to Anil Sawhney
9. Copies of all other RTI applications received with respect to information in the said complaint is sought as per your records.
10. Total No. of notices issued to Vinay Gupta after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
11. Total No. of statements obtained from Vinay Gupta after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
12. Total No. of notices issued to Anil Sawhney after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
13. Total No. of statements obtained from Anil Sawhney after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
14. Total No. of notices issued to Atul Sawhney after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
15. Total No. of statements obtained from Atul Sawhney after registration of FIR 0005 dated 28.01.2019
16. Incase of your inability to provide the same, copy of the protocol / notice / memo defining the procedure to obtain the above copy is sought
17. The name with complete contact details of the appropriate authority in case you are unable to provide the same The PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section V, EOW vide letter dated 19.03.2019 furnished a point wise information to the Appellant.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.03.2019. The FAA vide order dated 22.04.2019 directed the PIO/Sec- V/EOW to reconsider the RTI application and provide an appropriate reply to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of the order. In compliance with the FAA order, the PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section V, EOW vide letter dated 06.05.2019 furnished copy of complaint as sought in point No.3 of RTI application.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts merging during the hearing In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant and his representative Shri Ativ Gupta, who is the Appellant's son,participated in the hearing through video conference.
The Respondent was represented by Shri Nageen Kaushik, ACP, EOW, Section-5 and Shri Anand Prakash, SI, EOQ, Section- 5 through video conference.
Page 23 of 29A written submission has been received from the Appellant dated 15.02.2021 requesting to withdrawal of the present Second Appeal in view of the subject matter being dealt with in the Second Appeal File No CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/600533 also listed on the same date of hearing.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submission made by the Appellant not to pursue the matter any further, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed as withdrawn.
(16) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/657248 Vide RTI application dated 05.09.2019, the Appellant sought the following information from PIO, Economic Offences Wing, Sec - V, Mandir Marg, New Delhi regarding complaint filed by him against Vinay Gupta and others vide FIR NO. 0005/19:
1. Complete details with contact number of the present investigation officer in the FIR is sought as per records
2. Copy of the order / inter office memo / notice with annexures regarding transfer of case from SI Shiv Dev Singh to the present IO is sought as per records
3. Please provide complete details of all authorities / officials who have approved transfer of case to the present officer as per records
4. Please provide date when the case was transferred to the present officer as per records
5. Please provide copy of Standing Order / inter office memo/ instructions or any other clearly stating circumstances under which the FIR can be transferred from one investigation officer to another as per records The PIO cum Asst Commissioner of Police, Section V, EOW vide letter dated 04.10.2019 furnished point wise information to the Appellant, as available on record. Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 14.10.2019. The FAA vide order dated 07.11.2019 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant and his representative Shri Ativ Gupta, who is the Appellant's son, participated in the hearing through video conference. The Appellant's Page 24 of 29 representative stated that satisfactory information was not provided by the Respondent.
The Respondent was represented by Shri Nageen Kaushik, ACP, EOW, Section-5 and Shri Anand Prakash, SI, EOQ, Section- 5 through video conference. Shri Kaushik stated that the information as per available record has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of available record, the Commission is of the view that adequate information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(17) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658744 Vide RTI application dated 11.10.2019, the Appellant sought the following information from PIO, Delhi Police, MSO Building, ITO, Delhi regarding false defamation notice sent by Inspector Jitender Singh to falsely frame a Senior Citizen and the Appellant :
1. CCTV footage of all cameras installed around Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi from 29.09.2019 till 03.10.2019 is sought as per records
2. Clear CCTV Footage of the camera at all the entrances of Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi from 29.09.2019 till 03.10.2019 is sought as per records
3. Clear CCTV Footage of the camera covering the area around transformer near the Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi from 29.09.2019 till 03.10.2019 is sought as per records
4. Clear CCTV Footage of the camera at all the bus stops near Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi from 29.09.2019 till 03.10.2019 The PIO and ACP, EOW vide letter dated 06.11.2019 denied the information under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 11.11.2019. The FAA vide order dated 03.12.2019 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.Page 25 of 29
The Appellant and his representative Shri Ativ Gupta, who is the Appellant's son,participated in the hearing through video conference. The Appellant's representative stated that the information was required in order to defend their claims in a defamation suit filed against the Appellant. Alleging that Inspector Jitender Singh had falsely implicated the Appellant in a defamation case, the Appellant's representative stated that they did not want the CCTV footage of areas inside the EOW office but desired the footage of cameras recording the activities outside the premises/ gate of EOW for 01.10.2019 only wherein the Appellant can be allegedly seen pasting posters containing defamatory content against Inspector Jitender Singh.
The Respondent was represented by Shri Anil Samota, ACP, EOW and Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector through video conference. Shri Samota reiterated the response of the CPIO and stated that EOW being a organisation dealing with serious economic offences, disclosure of CCTV footage was not allowed to the Appellant as per Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 for security reasons. On being queried if the relevant extract of the CCTV footage only pertaining to the incident alleged by the Appellant can be provided to him, Shri Samota replied in the affirmative.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs Shri Anil Samota, ACP, EOW to provide to the Appellant, the relevant extract of the CCTV footage only pertaining to the incident alleged by the Appellant dated 01.10.2019, as agreed. In case no such footage involving the Appellant is found by the Respondent after its perusal, Shri Samota is directed to issue a sworn affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper to the Appellant explaining the factual position in the matter. The above mentioned direction should be complied with by 31.03.2021 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(18)CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/644800 Vide RTI application dated 23.05.2019 the Appellant sought the following information from the PIO, Police Headquarters, Delhi Police, MSO Building, ITO, New Delhi.
1. Whether the copy of the Station Daily Diary Register can be sought under RTI as per your records.
2. Copy any guidelines / inter office memo / Standing Order is sought as per your records stating clearly on the protocol to be followed for issuing the copy of the Station Daily Diary Register by RTI Applicant.
Page 26 of 293. Incase the same is not permitted under RTI Act, copy of any guidelines / inter office memo / Standing Order mentioning that the same is not a Public Documents is sought as per your records.
4. Please provide information on the Sources from where the copy of any NCR reports registered between 1997-1999 which have been duly destroyed by the local Police Station can be sought as per your records.
5. Copy any guidelines / inter office memo / Standing Order is sought as per your records stating clearly on the protocol to be followed for inspection of the Local Police Station Daily Diary Register by a citizen of India.
6. Please provide information on the Protocol to be followed for registration of an FIR of an NCR offence under Section 155 Cr. P.C. by the Police Officials to register an FIR as per your records. Copy of any such guidelines, order, interoffice memos is sought as per your records.
The PIO cum DCP, HQ, vide letter dated 20.06.2019 furnished point wise information to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed an appeal on 24.06.2019. The FAA vide order dated 04.07.2019 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant and his representative Shri Ativ Gupta, who is the Appellant's son, participated in the hearing through video conference. The Appellant's representative stated that satisfactory information was not provided by the Respondent. During the hearing, he specifically referred to point no 1 of the RTI application and stated that a reply should have been provided in affirmative or negative on whether station DD register can be provided under the RTI Act.
The Respondent was represented by Shri Ravinder Sharma, APIO, PHQ and Shri Rajesh Kumar, SI, RTI Cell, PHQ through video conference. Shri Kaushik stated that the information, as per available record, has been provided to the Appellant. During the hearing, he also clarified that disclosure of DD register would lead to sensitive and confidential information being provided. Hence no specific reply can be provided on the query raised in point no 1 of the RTI application as disclosure of information would depend on the facts of each case.
Page 27 of 29Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of available record, the Commission is of the view that adequate information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent at this stage. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Before parting with these Second Appeals/Complaint, the Commission observes that the Appellant has resorted to filing multiple RTI applications on issues which essentially pertain to his personal grievance. Even if the Commission were to reluctantly acknowledge that this is an attempt on the Appellant's part to fight corruption, the means adopted by him stifles and defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicant/s to not undermine the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the system with such a barrage of RTI applications, merely claiming that these are aimed at combatting corruption.
The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona- fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
The Commission also observes that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is Page 28 of 29 not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Thus, based on the abovementioned observation, the Commission advises the Appellant to abstain from filing multiple RTI applications on similar issues essentially related to his grievance redressal. Furthermore based on the facts and circumstances of other matters the Commission may dispose off the other Second Appeals without issuing separate notice of hearing in case the information sought in such matters is similar/ related to the information sought in the instant matters.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के .िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner(मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 29 of 29