Central Information Commission
Mr.Anil Datt Sharma vs Delhi Police on 18 June, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001297
June 18, 2013
Appellant : Shri Anil Dutt Sharma
Respondents : Delhi Police (North East District)
Date of Hearing : 18.06.2013
ORDER
The present appeal (not signed), filed by Shri Anil Dutt Sharma against Delhi Police (NorthEast District), earlier came up for hearing on 01.11.2012 and was postponed for today on the Appellant's request. The Respondents were represented by Shr M.L. Sharma, ACP, Shri Surender Singh, SI and Shri Pooran Lal, HC, while the Appellant was present in person. Facts of the Case:
2. The Appellant filed his RTI application dated 17.05.2011 with the CPIO, East District, Delhi Police, New Delhi seeking information against 9 points, which included queries such as, "provide me copy and particulars of the letter which you CIC/SS/A/2012/001297 Page 1 of 6 have received from the M.C.D. for refraining reoccurrence of encroachment on the above mentioned roads; provide me name who are ultimately responsible for re occurrence of encroachment at present on above mentioned roads; under which directions of law Pummy Sweets Dilshad Garden has occupied space outside the premises and roads; provide me information of that date and particulars of the information which the local police has sent to the M.C.D. and traffic police for removal of permanent and temporary encroachment on road since Jan 2011 till today" and so on.
3. The CPIO, North East District (to whom this application was apparently transferred by CPIO, East District) vide his order dated 15.06.2011, while informing the Appellant that point no. 1 relates to MCD, furnished pointwise reply to the Appellant in respect of remaining points of his RTI application.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 21.06.2011 through email (only one page of first appeal is enclosed with the present appeal).
5. Thereafter, the Appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO has not given correct and complete information. In this appeal he has also enclosed a copy of the order (dated 04.11.2011) of the Appellate Authority which dealt with his another appeal dated 08.10.2011, challenging the order dated 30.05.2011 of the CPIO, which was passed in response to some other RTI application dated 18.04.2011 of his.
CIC/SS/A/2012/001297 Page 2 of 6
6. Acting on the above appeal, the Commission listed the matter for 01.11.2012 when both the parties were present. However, the hearing was postponed on the request of the Appellant, who had informed the Commission that he was not prepared for hearing. The matter was accordingly listed for today i.e. 18.06.2013.
Decision:
7. At the outset of the hearing, the Appellant mentions that like in the previous case (CIC/SS/A/20121764) of his, in this case as well he has not received any notice from the Commission for hearing. In this case also he alleges that the order of the Appellate Authority is "nonspeaking". The Respondents, however, deny receipt of any first appeal from the Appellant in this case as well. They, however, mention that after receiving the Commission's hearing notice, they have given pointwise reply to the Appellant vide their letter dated 27.10.2012.
8. The Commission notes that in this case also the Appellant has enclosed unrelated order of the Appellate Authority and is challenging it on the ground that it is a nonspeaking order. Since the order enclosed by the Appellant, perse, does not relate to his instant RTI application, his allegation that the same is a non speaking order cannot be considered in the present proceeding.
9. As regards disclosure of information, the Appellant states that he is presently pressing for information related to only point Nos. 3, 4 & 7 of his instant RTI application. These points are accordingly discussed as given below:
CIC/SS/A/2012/001297 Page 3 of 6 Point Nos. 3 & 4:
10. The Appellant in these points sought to know the name of the officers who are ultimately responsible for reoccurrence of encroachment at present on above mentioned roads and, under which directions of law Pummy Sweets Dilshad Garden has occupied space outside the premises and roads. The Respondents state that they have since removed the said encroachment. The Appellant, however, refuses to believe the Respondents' statement and terms is as "wrong".
11. In view of the conflict above, the Commission considers it appropriate to allow the inspection of the sites in question to the Appellant so that he could himself verify the authenticity of statement of the Respondents and could obtain correct and factual information. The Respondents are, therefore, directed to allow the Appellant to inspect the sites in question within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
Point No. 7:
12. In this point, the Appellant wanted to obtain the letters/notice written by the local police to the M.C.D. and traffic police for removal of permanent and temporary encroachment on road since Jan 2011 till the date of his application.
13. The Commission notes that reply given by the Respondents in respect of this query is unclear. They have not stated whether they have written any letter or not. The Respondents are, therefore, directed to provide precise reply to the Appellant as yes or no. Needless to say, if letters/notices have been issued in this connection, the Respondents shall provide a copy of the same to the Appellant.
This information is to be given within 2 weeks of receipt of this order. CIC/SS/A/2012/001297 Page 4 of 6
14. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions, which are to be complied with within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated by (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar CIC/SS/A/2012/001297 Page 5 of 6 Address to the parties:
1. Shri Anil Dutt Sharma D129, New Seelampur Delhi 110053
2. The Central Public Information Officer/ Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police NorthEast District, Delhi Police Seelampur Delhi 110053
3. The Appellate Authority/ Deputy Commissioner of Police NorthEast District, Delhi Police Seelampur Delhi 110053 CIC/SS/A/2012/001297 Page 6 of 6