Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rajender Goel vs Delhi Police on 16 October, 2020

                                  के ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2019/154047

Shri Rajender Goel                                         िशकायतकता /Complainant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

The PIO,                                                   ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police, O/o the ADCP-1/PIO,
Outer District, Pushpanjali, Delhi - 110034

Date of Hearing                          :    15.10.2020
Date of Decision                         :    16.10.2020
Information Commissioner                 :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on                  :   15.08.2019
PIO replied on                            :   14.10.2019
First Appeal filed on                     :   No Reply
First Appellate Order on                  :   No Reply
2ndAppeal/complaint received on           :   08.11.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.08.2019 seeking information on 05 points:

1. Please tell me other accused Usha, Shallabh, Driver Raviender and Nitin when examined as per the directed by DCP/OD on 14-8-2019 in the presence of Complainant.

2. Please tell me other accused Usha, Shallabh, Driver Raviender and Nitin were examined strictly in terms of evidences /role of them reported in the status report filed on 16/17-8-2017 Hon'ble Delhi High Court by Inspr Om Parkash Sinha.

3. Please provide with the copy of questions put to them when examined by Inspr Om Parkash Sinha strictly in terms directions issued to ACP/DIU/OD and Inspr Om Parkash Sinha by DCP/OD on 14-8-2019 as mentioned in the representation dated 9-8-2019 addressed to DCP/OD of their evidences /role reported of them in the status report filed on 16/17-8-2017 Hon'ble Delhi High Court by Inspr Om Parkash Sinha.

4. Please allow to inspection of file in respect of file in which the enquiry/action is being conducted in respect of suspect Shallabh.

5. Please allow to take extract of the file after their inspection as desired by Complainant/applicant of the file.

(Queries reproduced verbatim) The PIO, Outer District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 14.10.2019 informed the Complainant on point no 01 and 02 that the matter was already examined by previous IO. With regard to the remaining points it was stated that as per report of District Investigation Unit Outer District, the case is pending investigation. Hence, the PIO, Outer District, Delhi Police denied the inspection under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of satisfactory response, the Complainant approached the Commission with a request to direct the PIO to give information on query 1 and 2, impose penalty u/s 20 (1) for providing false and incorrect information; direct PIO to allow inspection of record and award cost/ penalty/ compensation to him for wrongfully withholding the information.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Complainant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He denied the receipt of complete and satisfactory information and prayed that the same be disclosed to him at this stage.

The Respondent is represented by Rakesh Sangwan, ACP and APIO, Outer District through audio conference. He stated that information on point no 1 and 2 of the RTI application was already disclosed to the Complainant informing him that that the matter was already examined by previous IO. As regards the remaining points, it was stated that the matter is still under investigation and the suspects were on interim bail hence disclosure of information at this stage can impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Hence the information was still exempted u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. On being queried if he had approached the FAA in the instant matter, the Complainant replied in the negative.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the fact that no malafide intent could be attributed to the conduct of the PIO, no further intervention of the Commissions is warranted in the matter.

With the above observation, the instant Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3