Central Information Commission
Sanjay Bhardwaj vs Delhi Police on 15 December, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/115792
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122871
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122872
Shri Sanjay Bhardwaj ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, South West District ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: ACP Dharamvir Rathi; SI Rajinder;
Insp. Ashok Kumar
Date of Hearing : 15.12.2021
Date of Decision : 15.12.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
115792 13.08.2019 05.09.2019 04.10.2019 21.11.2019 04.06.2020
122871 01.05.2020 27.05.2020 03.06.2020 - 14.08.2020
122872 28.02.2020 23.03.2020 04.06.2020 - 14.08.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/115792 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.08.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points:-Page 1 of 5
The CPIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, South West Distt., vide letter dated 05.09.2019 furnished the copy of enquiry report to the Appellant, which reflects that civil suit for partition is pending between the Appellant and his brother at Dwarka Court. The Appellant has complained that his brother has sold part of the disputed property and despite reporting this to the police, the IO/ASI failed to take any action in this regard.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.10.2019. The FAA/DCP, SWD, Delhi Police vide order dated 21.11.2019 directed the CPIO(Addl. DCP/SWD) to reconsider the RTI application on point nos. 1 to 6 and provide comprehensive point-wise information within 03 weeks.
In compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO/ADCP-I, South West District, New Delhi vide letter dated 07.12.2019 furnished the following reply:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Both parties are heard through video conference and Appellant pointed out that pursuant to the FAA's order, the PIO/ADCP-I, South West District, New Delhi sent letter dated 07.12.2019. In response to his query number 1, wherein he Page 2 of 5 had sought paragraph wise report on complaint to DCP South West District, the Respondent had replied with a "YES". The Appellant averred that clearly the response was flawed and did not answer his query. The Appellant further contended that the enquiry report provided to him was old and did not reveal the updated status.
Respondent clarified that the response in affirmative was meant to state that that the enquiry report pertaining to the complaint filed by the Appellant against the ASI/IO Rajpal Singh was being provided to the Appellant.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122871 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.05.2020 seeking information about the status of his complaint dated 28.02.2020 filed against IO/ASI - Rajpal Singh before DCP South West District.
The CPIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, South West Distt., vide letter dated 27.05.2020 furnished the copy of report received from the HAC Branch.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2020. The FAA vide online dated 04.06.2020 transferred the first appeal to the concerned First Appellate Authority.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Both parties are heard through video conference and the Appellant communicated his grievance because the enquiry report furnished to him by the Respondent was old. Respondent stated that information pertained to an old complaint filed by the Appellant. Enquiry took place at the relevant point of time, in 2019 and report was furnished accordingly, hence the enquiry report was old.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122872 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2020 seeking information on the following points:-Page 3 of 5
The CPIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, South West Distt., vide letter dated 23.03.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2020which was not decided.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Both parties are heard through video conference and the Appellant reiterated his contentions that information sought by him was denied without any justification, by merely citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Respondent present during hearing explained that the direction of the Court about the stay order with respect to the disputed properties is pronounced in the Court in the presence of the concerned parties or their respective advocates. Thus Page 4 of 5 information about the Court's order is conveyed to the parties concerned. In such cases, it is not the responsibility nor is any direction passed by the Court, in normal course, directing the police authorities to convey or inform the parties to the suit about the order passed by the Court. Hence, no information about informing the parties about the Court's order is available with the Respondent nor could it be provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the aforementioned three cases reveal that the common subject matter which gives rise to the above appeals is the partition suit pending in the Dwarka Court between the Appellant, his brother and father. It is noted from the above discussion between the contesting parties and records submitted by the parties, information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been provided by the Respondent. It has been held on numerous occasions that the RTI Act cannot be used to adjudicate disputed questions which require proper process of trial. The partition suit between the Appellant and his family members is already pending adjudication before the appropriate Court of law.
Therefore, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further action is warranted in the above cases, since information permissible under the RTI Act has already been furnished by the Respondent.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5