Central Information Commission
Mr.Girish Nautiyal vs Delhi Police on 19 February, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
TEL; 01126179548
Decision No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001514/VS/06236
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001514/VS
Dated: 26.02.2014
Appellant: Shri Girish Nautiyal,
I98/B, Nr. Santoshi Mandir,
Krishan Vihar, Delhi110086
Respondent: Public Information Officer/
Addl. DCPI, Delhi Police,
Outer District, Pushpanjali,
Delhi110034
Date of Hearing: 19.02.2014
O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 4.3.2013 seeking information about the various needs of residents of Krishan Vihar area including the track record of tenants residing in that area. In all, information has been sought on 4 points. The PIO responded pointwise on 1.4.2013.
2. The appellant filed his first appeal on 9.4.2013 with the first appellate authority (FAA) on the ground of incorrect and incomplete information. The FAA, while agreeing with the reply of the CPIO, provided on 8.5.2013 a copy of fresh report received from SHO, Sultanpuri. The appellant approached the Commission on 16.5.2013 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing personally.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 4.3.2013 and stated that he is yet to receive the information sought in his RTI application. The appellant stated that while he has received a letter dated 1.4.2013 from the CPIO, but the information was incomplete. The appellant stated that his focus in the hearing is on the following points:
(i) Whether the PS, Sultanpuri maintains a record of tenants residing in Krishan Vihar area?
(ii) Whether the police took any penal action against the owners of residential houses in the said area for withholding any information about their tenants;
(iii) The number of cases registered in the area in respect of theft, vandalism/brawling during 2012;
(iv) The record of action taken by the PS, Sultanpuri in the event of violations of order prohibiting use of loudspeakers after 10 PM;
(v) The action taken by the police on his complaint dated 25.2.2013, mentioned in para 3 of the RTI application; and
(vi) Whether the DCP office has any grievance cell.
5. The respondent stated that a reply to the RTI application was sent to the appellant by the CPIO on 1.4.2013 followed by another reply from the FAA on 8.5.2013 providing some additional information. Decision
6. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant the information available on para 4 above within 30 days of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commission Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer