Central Information Commission
Ramesh Chander Arora vs Delhi Police on 24 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/122341 +
CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/122340
Ramesh Chander Arora ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Delhi Police,
Janakpuri, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 122341 02.04.2024 30.04.2024 24.05.2024 22.06.2024 12.07.2024
&
25.06.2024
2. 122340 02.04.2024 30.04.2024 24.05.2024 22.06.2024 12.07.2024
&
25.06.2024
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 22.10.2025
Date of Decision: 23.10.2025
Page 1 of 7
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/122341
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Pl arrange to provide certified copy of documents viz. sheet(s)/file/folder etc. containing proceedings/handling of complaint no. 801012262455 dt 13.9.22.
2. Pl arrange to provide certified copy of documents viz. sheet(s)/file/folder etc. containing proceedings/handling of complaint no. 801012280603 dt 03.04.2023.
3. Pl inform about the action taken in respect of my complaint filed in PS Rajouri Garden vide DD No. 67A on 15.01.2024.
4. Pl. inform about the action taken in respect of my complaint filed in PS Rajouri Gdn vide DD No.104A dt 12.3.24
5. Pl inform about the action taken in respect of my letters filed in PS Rajauri Gdn. Vide D.D. No. 95A dt 30.10.23 and 111A dt 16.12.2023. also provide Enq. Report of Com. No. 8170037230415 dt 20.10.2023. ..., etc./ other related information 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point No. 1 to 7: In this regard, reply/record obtained from SHO/Rajouri Garden through ACP/Rajouri Garden (total 4 pages) is attached herewith, which is self- contained Point No. 8 & 9: The requisite information is query in nature which does not comes in the domain of "information" u/s 2(f) of RTI Act-2005."Page 2 of 7
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.06.2024 stated as under: -
"अधोह ा रकता ने सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम के तहत दायर िकये गये ाथना-प , जन सूचना िजला ारा उपल करवाई गई सूचना व अपीलकता की अपील का अवलोकन िकया व पाया िक जन सूचना अिधकारी ारा, अपीलकता के आवेदन प पर िनधा रत समय के अ गत तथा सही सूचना उपल करवानी पाई गई है। अपीलकता की अपील ा होने के प ात् जन सूचना अिधकारी से इस संबंध म िट णी मां गी गई। जन सूचना अिधकारी से ा िट णी म कुछ नई जानकारी उपल होनी पाई गई है। अतः जन सूचना अिधकारी/पि मी िजला इस आदे श के ा होने के 07 कायिदवसों म नई जानकारी एवं द ावेज (जांच रपोट) अपीलकता को िनः शु उपल करवा दे ।"
1.3. In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under: -
"Point No. 1 to 7: In this regard, fresh report/record obtained from SHO/Rajouri Garden through ACP/Rajouri Garden, West District (total 22 pages) is enclosed herewith, which is self-contained Point No. 8 & 9: Requisite information is query in nature and does not come in the domain RTI Act-2005 u/s 2(f)."
1.4. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.07.2024. Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/122340
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Pl inform about the action taken in r/o my letter submitted in your office i.e. Police Station Hari Nagar, New Delhi on 18.12.2023.Page 3 of 7
2. Pl inform about the action taken in r/o of my letter sent to PS Hari Nagar through speed post on 16.01.2024.
3. Pl inform about the action taken in r/o my letter submitted in PS Hari Nagar vide DD No. 71A dt 30.01.2024.
4. Pl arrange to provide certified copy of the document viz file/folder etc containing the proceeding with regard to complaint no. 801012280403 dt 03.4.2023.
5. Pl arrange to provide certified copy of enquiry report submitted by SHO Hari Nagar in r/o complaint no. 801012280403 dt 03.4.2023. ..., etc./ other related information 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point No. 1 to 8: In this regard, reply/record obtained from SHO/Hari Nagar through ACP/Rajouri Garden (Total 3 pages) is attached herewith, which is self- contained."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.06.2024 stated as under: -
"अधोह ा रकता ने सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम के तहत दायर िकये गये ाथना-प , जन सूचना अिधकारी/प0 िजला ारा उपल करवाई गई सूचना व अपीलकता की अपील का अवलोकन िकया व पाया िक जन सूचना अिधकारी ारा, अपीलकता के आवेदन प पर िनधा रत समय के अ गत तथा सही सूचना उपल करवानी पाई गई है । अपीलकता की अपील ा होने के प ात् जन सूचना अिधकारी से इस संबंध म िट णी मां गी गई।
जन सूचना अिधकारी से ा िट णी म कुछ नई जानकारी उपल होनी पाई गई है ।
अतः जन सूचना अिधकारी/पि मी िजला इस आदे श के ा होने के 07 कायिदवसों म नई जानकारी एवं द ावेज (जांच रपोट) अपीलकता को िनः शु उपल करवा दे ।"Page 4 of 7
2.3. In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point No. 1 & 2: In this regard, fresh report/record obtained from SHO/Hari Nagar through ACP/Rajouri Garden and Complaint Branch/West District (total 07 pages) is enclosed herewith, which is self self-contained."
2.4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.07.2024.
3. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Neeraj Tokas, ACP; Mukesh Yadav, SI; attended the hearing in-person.
4. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent was unsatisfactory in CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/122341, since the report furnished by the CPIO contained a different date, although the same registration number was incorporated in the report. In CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/122340, the appellant insisted that the information sought in point no. 8 of the RTI application had not been provided to him, so far.
5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the report furnished by the CPIO in CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/122341 was concerning the complaint number referred to in the RTI application. However, in the covering letter the CPIO had inadvertently mentioned the year 2022 and admitted that the same was typographical error. The reply given to the RTI application in CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/122340 was reiterated by the respondent.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate replies have been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act and as per records maintained under their custody. The CPIO clarified that the erstwhile CPIO had incorrectly mentioned the year 2022 in the report supplied to the appellant, however, the accurate and relevant report was given in CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/122341. Besides, the information sought in point no. 8 of the RTI application is copy of a document sent by the appellant himself and is Page 5 of 7 expected to be under his custody. In that regard, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of High Court, Madras v. Central Information Commission, Writ Petition No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014 has held as follows:-
".......we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right ............. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
That being so, the Commission observes that there is no infirmity in the replies given by the respondent in both the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 23.10.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 7 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Public Information Officer, Addl. Dy. Commissioner Of Police & PIO, West District, DCP Office Complex, C-Block Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 2 Ramesh Chander Arora Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)