Central Information Commission
Shri Ziley Singh vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (South), ... on 18 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00741 dated 28.5.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Ziley Singh
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (South), Delhi
Facts:
By an application of 28.1.07 Shri Ziley Singh of Village Tehkhand, New Delhi applied to DCP (South District) New Delhi seeking the following information:
(i) Detail (with certified photocopy) of Direction/ Remarks/ Order on complaint dated 9.1.2006.
- of the office of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor transmitting it to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
- of the office of the Commissioner of Police transmitting it vide Dy. No. 208/LG-CP-Delhi dated 12.01.2006 to Joint CP/Southern Range.
- Of the office of the Joint CP/ Southern Range transmitting it vide Dy. No. 224/Compt./ SR dated 16.01.2006 to DCP/ South District.
- Of the office of the DCP/South District transmitting it vide Dy.
No. 212/SDC/SD/ dated 17.01.2006 to ACP/Kalkaji.
- Of the office of the ACP/Kalkaji transmitting it vide Dy. No. 26/ TC/ACP/X dated 22.01.2006.
WITH DETAIL AND CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL ACTION/ ORDER BY THEAUTHORITYC ONCERNED AND WITH WHOM THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT LYING/ RESTING AT PRESENT FOR WHAT PURPOSE.
(Please see Para 1 of your letter No. 130/ RTI Cell dated 15.1.2007 annexed hereto as Ann.-1)
(ii) Detail (with certified photocopy) of direction/ remarks/ order on complaint dated 12/13.1.2006.
1- of the office of the Commissioner of Police transmitting it vide Dy. No. 263/CP-Delhi dated 17.01.2006 to the DCP/ Vigilance.
- Of the office of the DCP/ Vigilance transmitting it vide Dy.
No. 863/DCP/ Vig dated 18.01.2006 to DCP/ South District.
- Of the office of the DCP/ South District transmitting it vide Dy. No. 1918/SDC/SD dated 30.01.2006 to the ACP/ Kalkaji.
WITH DETAIL AND CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL ACTION/ ORDER BY THEAUTHORITY CONCERNED AND WITH WHOM THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT LYING/ RESTING AT PRESENT FOR WHAT PURPOSE.
(Please see Para 2 of your letter cited here above.)
(iii) Detail (with certified photocopy) of direction/ remarks/ order on the complaint dated 28.3.2006.
- of the office of the commissioner of Police, Delhi transmitting it vide Dy. No. 5446/CP-Delhi dated 28.3.2006 to Joint CP/ Southern Range.
- Of the office of the Joint CP/ Southern Range transmitting it vide Dy. No. 2978/ Compt. / SR/ dated 30.3.2006 to DCP/ South District.
- Of the office of the DCP/ South/ district transmitting it vide Dy. No. 6424/SDC/SD dated 31.03.2006 to ACP/ Kalkaji.
WITH DETAIL AND CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL ACTION/ ORDER BY THEAUTHORITY CONCERNED AND WITH WHOM THE ORIGINAL COMPALINT LYING/ RESTING AT PRESENT FOR WHAT PURPOSE."
To this he received a response on 27.2.07 from PIO Shri Anil Shukla, DCP (South) as follows:
"As per the directions of Hon'ble CIC in appeal No. F. No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00406 & 407 both dated 18.12.2006, copy of proof of dispatch of PIO's order, copy of letter dated 4.9.2006 of this office and details of your complaints dated 9.1.2006, 12/13.01.2006 and 28.03.2006 transmitted to this office from the office Commissioner of P/Delhi had already been provided to you vide 2 this office letter No. 130/RTI Cell/ SD dated15.01.2007, hence, the directions of the Hon'ble CIC has already been complied with.
However, on your complaint dated 9.1.2006 the remarks of Jt. CP/SR "to enquiry through PG Cell and report" your complaint dated 12/13.01.2006 received in this office from DCP/ Vigilance and your complaint dated 28.03.2006, remarks of Jt. CP/SR "for necessary action". The outcome of the enquiry report pertaining to the issue had already been provided to you vide this office letter No. 377/DIC/SD dated 22.5.2006 on the application of Shri Amit and copy of the same provided to you vide this office letter No.1024/DIC/SD dated 04.09.2006."
Aggrieved, Shri Ziley Singh then moved his first appeal before the Jt. Commissioner of Police (Southern Range) on 7.3.07 on the following grounds:
1. "The specific information sought vide application dated 29.01.2007 (Ann.-I pages: 2-6) is not contained in CPIO's response No. 494/RTI Cell/SD dated 27.2.2007 (Ann.-II pages: i.
2. The above said response's second paragraph pertains to the period up to 15.1.2007 and out of context since the application seeking information is dated 29.01.2007. Then how could the information be given earlier.
3. The above said response's third paragraph's first sentence is not as per request and its very next and the last sentence is false and misleading since the alleged letter No. 377/DIC/SD dated 22.5.2006 does not contain the information sought on 29.01.2007."
Finding that the directions of the CIC cited by PIO did not address the requested information in the present application, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Jt. Commissioner (Southern Range) found as follows:
"Regarding information about the remarks/ directions of the officers (point- I above), the PIO/DCP/SD has provided only remarks of Jt. CP/SR on the complaints dated 9.1.2006 and 28.3.2006. However, the out come of the enquiry has been informed to the appellant vide No. 1024/DIC/Sd, dated 4.9.2006, but, the fate of the complaints, in question, have not been made clear. The PIO/DCP/SD has not talked about the certified copies of the complaints/ documents as requested by him. In fact, the reply is not found on points according to the RTI request regarding complaints dated 09, 12/13.01.2006 and 28.3.2006.3
I, therefore, direct that the PIO/DCP/SD shall send a fresh comprehensive point-wise reply to the appellant as requested under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This shall be completed within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order."
In compliance with this order PIO Shri Anil Shukla DCP supplied further information to the appellant Shri Ziley Singh through his letter of 20.4.'07 as follows:
"Point No. 1. Details (with certified copy) of direction/ remarks/ order on complaint dated 9.1.2006, the remarks of the Jt. CP/SR was to enquiry through PG Cell and report. Your complaint was forwarded without any remarks by the other authority's officer. The complaint in question was filed and is kept in the Complaint Branch, South District for record purposes as no further action is warranted in this regard.
Point No. 2. Details (with certified copy) of direction/ remarks/ order on complaint dated 12/13.01.2006. your complaint was forwarded without any remarks by the authority's officer. The complaint in question was filed and is kept in the Complaint Branch, South District for record purposes as no further action is warranted in this regard.
Point No. 3. Details (with certified copy) of direction/ remarks/ order on complaint dated 28.3.2006 the remarks of the Jt. CP/SR was for necessary action. Your complaint was forwarded without any remarks by the other authorities/ officers. The complaint in question was filed and is kept in the complaint Branch, South District for record purposes as no further action is warranted in this regard.
It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid remarks passed by the officer/ authorities were on the complaints in question and there were no separate instructions/ remarks/ order issued in this regard.
Further, the outcome of enquiry pertaining to the aforesaid complaints had already been provided to your vide this office letter No. 377/DIC/SD dated 22.5.2006 on the application of Shri Amit and copy of which was provided to your vide this office letter No124/DIC/SD dated 4.9.2006. As far as certified copy of the final action/ order by the authority concerned is concerned, the same cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (e) & (g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."4
In his second appeal before us, Shri Ziley Singh has however prayed as follows:
"It is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may graciously be pleased to direct the CPIO through the Appellate Authority to provide the specific information and certified copies as requested vide application and direction of the appellate authority vide No. 2392-94 dated 29.01.2007.
Vide order dated 28.3.2007 (Ann. A-IV) the same disobeyed vide CPIO's order/ reply no. 1021 dated 20.4.2007 (Ann. A-V) under challenge."
In response to the appeal notice Shri H.G.S.Dhaliwal, present DCP (South) has submitted detailed comments on the appeal and concluded these with the following arguments:
"That it is worth mentioning here that the allegations of the appellant regarding not providing the information despite the directions of the First Appellate Authority in Appeal No (37) /RTIA(SD) dated 07.03.07, is false and baseless. The First Appellate Authority has directed that a fresh comprehensive pointwise reply to the appellant as requested, under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 205 shall be given within 3 weeks. In compliance thereof, a fresh and comprehensive pointwise reply was provided to the appellant vide this office letter under reference. It is further to add that the First Appellate authority has not directed the PIO-cum-DCP, South District to provide the copy of the enquiry report in question. Thus, the orders of the First Appellate Authority have been complied with meticulously.
That the applicant had not filed his first appeal against the order dated 20.04.'07 of the IO/South District as mentioned above as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005."
The appeal was heard on 18.7.08. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Ziley Singh.
Respondent Shri S. S. Manan, Addl. DCP/SD.
Shri Mahabir Prasad, Asstt.5
Appellant Shri Ziley Singh submitted that he has not received a copy of the response of 15.7.08 of DCP(S) Shri Dhaliwal to our appeal notice. A copy was, therefore, provided to him.
DECISION NOTICE The moot point at issue before us is whether or not the orders of Appellate Authority Shri Rajesh Kumar, Jt. Commissioner of Police (Southern Range) have in fact been complied with. As may be seen from a reading of appellant Shri Ziley Singh's prayer before us and the summary of the response from PIO DCP(S), both quoted above, while appellant has pleaded that the compliance has been only in part, the PIO has argued that the answers are given in meticulous compliance with the directions of the First Appellate Authority.
Since it is the responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, the Commission, therefore, has decided to remand the case back to the first Appellate Authority Shri Rajesh Kumar, Jt. Commissioner of Police (Southern Range) to ensure that its orders under section 19(1) are duly complied with and after hearing the appellant Shri Ziley Singh, that the requested information is furnished in terms of the order so passed, with the qualification that now, in accordance with Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005, no fees will be charged.
If the compliance is not ensured within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, the FAA should approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act for imposition of penalty and/or recommending appropriate disciplinary action. This will be without prejudice to the right of the First AA to initiate other penal action under the Indian Penal Code against the PIO for willful violation of lawful orders promulgated by a public servant while exercising statutory powers.6
With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 18.7.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 18.7.2008 7