Central Information Commission
Naresh Kumar vs Delhi Police on 12 December, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग, मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/103806
Shri Naresh Kumar ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Outer District
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 12.12.2023
Date of Decision : 12.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.11.2020
PIO replied on : 22.12.2020
First Appeal filed on : 05.01.2021
First Appellate Order on : 09.02.2021
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd
: 27.01.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.11.2020seeking information on following points:-
a) How many complaints given to PS Ranhola and action taken by Higher HQs | Local Police Station from 2018 to 2020 (June 18 to August 2020).
(b) How many PCR call make by me and my family from August 2018 to 2021 for our Safety and public?
(c) How many letters received from Defence Ministry/ PMO office for redressal provide my family as yet?
(d) PS Ranhola, How many SHO! Cops dismissed / suspended/ terminate / Postings or involvement in corruption/bribe / Robbery Decauti/ Illegal activities / murder and kidnapping cases of Public by your cops for bribery?
(e) Charter of Duty SHO/ ST Rinku Bhakar (ASI Babulal/HC Charan singh on 18 August 2019 to 19 Aug 2019
(f)How many cops attack on vigilame on 14/18 NN 2018 for wine shop raid at Ranhola? What action taken against as yet.
(g) what action taken on our complaints /100 PCR Call given to police station for action against local criminal/ illegal activities and criminal and the details given to SHO Jasminder Choudhary/SHO Manmohan Page 1 of 3 Singh /SI Rinku Bhakar while Personally met them at Police Station Ranhola at four times in his office? How many case done that cops as yet?
(h) What is the motto of Police? Duty of local Police if anyone as a helping an Army officer! Is there any guidelines from Defence Ministry/ MHA.
(i)How Many Cases / Complaints against Smt Darshana, Rajesh and Smt Pushpa as on date?
The CPIO, office of Addl DCP-I, Outer Distt, Delhi vide letter dated 22.12.2020 furnished point wise information to the Appellant as under:-
"(a to c and g) In this regard, report of SHO/Ranhola is enclosed.
(d) In this regard, it is stated that you have not mention time period for which you need the information. However, as per report of Punishment-Branch/Outer District, no police personal from Police Station Rnhola have been dismissed or terminated in this current year 2020.
(e). As per report of HAP/OD, no such raid was conducted on wine shop during the year 2018 in Ranhola as per available record.
(f) Question is not clear.
(g) Not come under the purview of RTI Act-2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2021. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Outer District, Delhi vide order dated 09.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The following were present :
Appellant: Absent Respondent : 1. Mr. Narender Kumar, I/c RTI Cell, Outer District
2. Mr. Amit, PSI, PS: Ranhola The Respondent stated that point wise reply has been duly furnished to the Appellant from their official record. He further stated that the Appellant has not mentioned specific details viz. date etc relating to which information has been sought due to which it is not plausible to trace the information as sought.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the Page 2 of 3 provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3