Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Naresh Kadyan vs Delhi Police on 18 February, 2025

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                    के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                                 बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2024/616039

Shri Naresh Kadyan                                          निकायतकताग /Complainant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Delhi Police, New Delhi District                       ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                           :    14.02.2025
Date of Decision                          :    14.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner            :    Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on                   :   29.01.2024
PIO replied on                             :   22.02.2024
First Appeal filed on                      :   02.03.2024
First Appellate Order on                   :   20.03.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on            :   19.04.2024

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

"BSF 100 Camels brought to Delhi, to take part in Republic Day Parade at Kartavya Path, adopting cruelty against them in non-approved goods transport vehicles, violating Delhi Police Standing order No. 31 of 2022, reading with section 33 of BSF Act, 1968 with orders passed by the Supreme and Delhi High Court, restoring their S freedoms, and they are being shifting back from Delhi to Rajasthan, adopting same cruel method of leg tied, which violate law, supply compliance."

The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, cum-PIO, New Delhi vide letter dated 22.02.2024 replied as under:-

"The requisite information does not relate to New Delhi District."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.03.2024 stated as under:-

"The undersigned has carefully examined the contents of the appeal, online RTI request dated 29.01.2024 of the appellant and found that the PIO/New Delhi District has given reply vide letter No. 387(ID-095/2024) dated 22.02.2024. As per Section 2(F) of the Right to Information Act 2005, the objective of the Right to Information Act is to provide factual information available on record If you have any grievance regarding BSF 100 Camels brought to Delhi, to take part in Republic Day parade, the same may be put up for enquiry/investigation through appropriate government machinery and not through RTI application. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the matter as the PIO/New Delhi District has given proper reply within the time limit to the Appellant with regard to his application under the RTI Act, 2005."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 02.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO, Delhi Police, New Delhi District reiterating the facts stated hereinabove about the replies sent to the Complainant.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Complainant: Not present Respondent: Shri Dharmendra Kumar Singh - ACP/Hq/NDD was present during hearing.

Respondent present during hearing stated that appropriate response had been duly furnished to the Complainant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Upon careful examination of the facts of the case and upon hearing averments of the Respondent present during hearing, it is noted that the Respondent had replied appropriately, in consonance with the legal provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant has not sought any specific information nor chosen to buttress the instant case. Since the Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which can be adjudicated is whether there was any deliberate or willful concealment of information. From the records of the case, it appears that the reply sent by the Respondent is in consonance with the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.

It is relevant to note the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, as under:

"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."

31. .. the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."

In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that since information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.

The case is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)