Central Information Commission
Ram Bilas Tripathi vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 9 August, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ADDDM/A/2021/131832-UM
Mr.Ram BilasTripathi
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Additional District Magistrate
O/o D M North West DistKanjhawala
Delhi - 110081
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.08.2022
Date of Decision : 08.08.2022
Date of RTI application 26.04.2021
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 10.06.2021
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.08.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 23 points regarding DCD Team including team leader etc. dated. 18.03.2021 for cutting the covid challan without mask etc. u/s DMA in Bunker colony area in P.S.- Bharat Nagar, Delhi.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA.The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
Page 1 of 3HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ram BilasTripathi and Adv. Dilip Kumar present in the hearing, Respondent: Mr. Chandra Shekhar, SDM, present in the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding DCD Team including team leader who cut the covid challans against him without wearing mask on 18.03.2021 etc. He further stated that there was undue delay in furnishing the reply on his RTI application which is in violation of RTI Act 2005. He said the CPIO is making mockery of the provisions of RTI act 2005 and indulging in only a formality and giving misinformation. He submitted that incomplete information was received from the Respondent on 01.08.2022. He alleged that DCD team forcefully entered his office and asked him to give a fine of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) for not maintaining social distance while sitting with four others in his offices. When he questioned the abrupt action of the officials, the DCD teams behaves with him rudely and on dither argument threw him out of his shop and started humiliating and beating him. He said when he could not bear the violence and humiliation any more he also slapped one of the personnel.
What followed this was an unbearable of ordeal in the form of humiliation which has left mental scars on him, the appellant said even as he broke down emotionally while narrating the incident. He said he was called to the police station following the team's compliant and treated like a hardened criminal and subjected to unbearable violence and humiliation beyond description. All his pleas and his own complaints against the team fell on deaf ears and he was released from the police station only in the morning, the Appellant said. He alleged that till morning he was not allowed even to take his mandatory daily dose of medicines for diabetes and thyroid and his request as to who had lodged the complaint against him was also refused. Therefore, he said he was seeking the information regarding DCD who subjected him to humiliation so that he could file complaint against them and seek justice. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 01.08.2022, they had furnished a point-wise reply as per record available in their office. When queried regarding the delay, he submitted that due to covid-19 pandemic situation they could not furnish the information. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said.Page 2 of 3
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 03.08.2022 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that the incident if true is moving for the undue violence and humiliation caused to the appellant and further notes that while implementing the law the authorities can't misbehave and with complete lack of sensitivity. It observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to share the complete information as sought by the appellant by revealing the details he has sought about the DVD team and their team leader, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Commission further advises the Respondent public authority to look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the extant guidelines, if necessary by calling the Appellant to their Office at a mutually convenient date and time to resolve the above said issue in a time bound manner, thus adhering to the law of natural justice.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 08.08.2022 Page 3 of 3