Central Information Commission
Yogesh Malhotra vs Delhi Police on 28 May, 2021
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/143848
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/141539
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/155142
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/126581
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/126966
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/141090
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/106589
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/149245
Shri Yogesh Malhotra ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2021
Date of Decision : 28.05.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since all the Appeals are filed by the same Appellant against Delhi Police,
the above mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal
and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the
pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled
after giving prior notice to both the parties. The Appellant, Shri Govind
Sharma, ACP, South East District, Shri Khushal Raj Sharma, ACP, PCR,
Shri Aditya Gautam, ACP, Cyber Cell and Smt Poornima Panthri, ACP, 3rd
Bn DAP, Delhi Police participated in hearing through audio conference.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
143848 08.05.2019 26.06.2019 03.07.2019 05.08.2019 09.09.2019
141539 22.04.2019 30.05.2019 12.06.2019 15.07.2019 27.08.2019
155142 04.09.2019 16.10.2019 10.10.2019 29.10.2019 15.11.2019
126581 04.06.2020 22.07.2020 24.07.2020 17.08.2020 10.09.2020
126966 12.06.2020 17.07.2020 11.08.2020 17.09.2020 14.09.2020
Page 1 of 16
141090 28.09.2020 30.10.2020 11.11.2020 10.12.2020 24.12.2020
106589 13.10.2020 22.12.2020 04.01.2021 04.02.2021 11.02.2021
149245 03.07.2019 29.08.2019 11.09.2019 01.10.2019 14.10.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/143848 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2019 seeking information on the following 29 points about his complaints dated 25.0.2019 sent by way of email regarding water seepage from drain pipe and a case of attempt to murder:-
ETC.
The PIO/PHQ sent a reply dated 28.05.2019 stating that the complaints sent by the Appellant had been received vide email on 25.04.2019 and information in this regard will be provided by PIO/SED.
A reply dated 13.06.2019 was sent by PIO, PCR with respect to queries 14 and 15 stating that 3 PCR calls had been received by the CPCR and the PCR call forms in this regard were sent alongwith the reply.
The APIO/SE District vide letter dated 26.06.2019 replied as under:-
Page 2 of 161 to 16, 19 to 28 - Complaint was received at PS and the same was marked to SI Yogesh, who had conducted the enquiry and sent the reply vide this office no. 385/CMTS/SHO/KJI & 1611/CMTS/ACP/KJI, dated 28.05.2019. Copy of reply is enclosed.
17 - May be obtained from higher office.
18 - The best staff has been directed to visit the Sr. Citizen in their respective beats. However, the applicant is living with her ageing mother.
Copy of report dated 27.05.2019 from SI Yogesh Tanwar is found annexed with the PIO's reply, noting that no cognisable offence was found on site inspection. The report is self explanatory.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.07.2019. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police vide order dated 05.08.2019 directed PIO(Addl. DCP)/SED to provide fresh point-wise appropriate information to point No. 02 to 17 & 20 to 28 of his RTI application within 20 days.
In compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South-East Distt. Vide letter dated 22.08.2019 furnished the information.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing A written submission has been received from the PIO and Addl DCP, PCR vide letter dated 21.05.2021 wherein while referring to the reply dated 13.05.2019 it was stated that only points 14 and 15 pertained to them. The FAA, PCR vide order dated 04.09.2019 concurred with the CPIO's response.
The PIO, PHQ, vide written submission dated 24.05.2021 reiterated the response dated 28.05.2019 provided to the Appellant which is on record of the Commission.
The PIO cum Addl DCP, South East District vide written submission dated 27.05.2021 reiterated the chronological sequence of events and stated that information was provided to the Appellant on 13.06.2019. Thereafter, subsequent to the FAA's order dated 07.09.2019, a revised response was provided on 22.08.2019.
The Appellant stated that no satisfactory information on points 2 to 16 and 18 of the RTI application was provided. He stated that copies of inquiry report provided by the Respondent did not answer his queries and no action was taken on the issue of water leakage/seepage on his premises from A-286, Double Storey Kalkaji.
Page 3 of 16The Respondent stated that information as per record has been provided to the Appellant. It was also stated the copy of the inquiry report and the details of the PCR calls have been given by them which address the queries raised in the RTI application.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/141539 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2019 seeking information on the following 14 points inter alia regarding the following:-
Etc The CPIO/Dy. Commissioner of Police vide letter dated 30.05.2019 furnished the information on point nos. 1 to 2 enclosing the reply of the Cyber Cell and in response to point nos. 3 to 14 stated that the requisite information does not pertain to the South-East District.Page 4 of 16
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.06.2019. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police vide order dated 15.07.2019 directed PIO(Addl. DCP)/SED to provide fresh point-wise appropriate information on point No. 03 to 14 of his RTI application within 15 days.
In compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South-East Distt. vide letter dated 02.08.2019 furnished the information.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing The PIO cum Addl DCP, South East District vide written submission dated 27.05.2021 reiterated the chronological sequence of events as narrated above.
The Appellant stated that he had sought information regarding cyber crimes cell, manner of investigations of complaints by cyber cell, formalities to be completed at the time of filing such complaints, details of private investigators whose assistance is taken by the cyber cell, etc. He further stated that in case the information was not available, it could have been transferred to the concerned department u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act.
Shri Aditya Gautam, ACP, Cyber Crimes Cell stated that the information sought does not pertain to their department. During the hearing, he also clarified that cyber cell is a part of Special Cell and they function independently. He also stated that information regarding self proclaimed private investigators is not available with them as their activities are not regulated by Delhi Police.
Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of available records, the Commission observes that certain information asked in the RTI application such as the number of police stations in Delhi with Cyber Cells should be provided to the information seeker as the same is generic in nature and is not in the nature of seeking opinion/interpretation/explanation of the PIO. Thus, the Commission directs the PIO and Addl DCP, South East District to transfer the RTI application to Shri Deepak Purohit, Addl Commissioner of Police cum PIO. Police Hqs, who should provide the information on point no 1 of the RTI application to the Appellant by 15.07.2021. No other intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Page 5 of 16(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/155142 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.09.2019 seeking information on the following 32 points:-
Etc. The CPIO/Addl Dy. Commissioner of Police, South East District vide letter dated 16.10.2019 furnished the point-wise information to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.10.2019. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police vide order dated 29.10.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing The PIO, PHQ, vide written submission dated 24.05.2021 reiterated the chronological sequence of event and stated that vide letter dated 01.10.2019, the PIO, PHQ after taking assistance of other officers of PHQ u/s 5 (4) of the RTI Act provided the information to the Appellant.
The PIO cum Addl DCP, South East District vide written submission dated 27.05.2021 reiterated the chronological sequence of events and referred to the CPIO/ FAA letters dated 16.10.2019 and 29.10.2019 respectively.
The Appellant stated that point wise information as sought in his RTI application was not provided and only a copy of a single page inquiry report was disclosed.
Page 6 of 16Shri Govind Sharma, ACP, South East District stated that an updated factual position has been provided to the Appellant in the inquiry report. The issues raised in the complaint were civil in nature and non-cognisable.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/126581 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.09.2019 seeking information on the following 38 points:-
Etc. The CPIO/Dy. Commissioner of Police, South East District vide letter dated 22.07.2020 furnished the report obtained from Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.07.2020. The FAA/DCP, SED vide order dated 10.08.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 7 of 16Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing The PIO cum Addl DCP, South East District vide written submission dated 27.05.2021 reiterated the chronological sequence of events as narrated above.
The Appellant stated that since the information was received by him in October, 2020 subsequent to the filing instant Second Appeal, he does not wish to press the matter any further.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant not to press the matter any further, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as withdrawn.
(5) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/126966 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.06.2020 seeking information on the following 10 points:-
Etc. The CPIO/Dy. Commissioner of Police, South East District vide letter dated 17.07.2020 replied as under:-Page 8 of 16
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.08.2020. The FAA and DCP, South East District directed the CPIO to reexamine the matter and provide information on points 28 to 38 of the RTI application within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Any response in compliance to the FAA's order, is not available with the Second Appeal.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing The PIO cum Addl DCP, South East District vide written submission dated 27.05.2021 reiterated the chronological sequence of events he stated that the order of the FAA was complied with vide letter dated 25.09.2020.
The Appellant stated that exemption u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) claimed by the Respondent to deny the information was incorrect as from a safety and security point of view it is in the interest of the residents living in a neighbourhood to be aware about the antecedents of servants working in a premise.
The Respondent reiterated the reply of the PIO and stated that being third party information, the same was not disclosed to the Appellant.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that information on point no 1 of the RTI application regarding the factual position (Yes/No) of police verification of servants of the premise mentioned in the RTI application should be provided to the Appellant keeping in view the safety and security of the residents of the premise as also the neighbours. The above direction should be complied with by 15.07.2021. As regards the remaining information sought in the RTI application, the Commission is of the view that the same qualifies as personal information of third parties exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Page 9 of 16With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(6) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/141090 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.09.2020 seeking information on the following 12 points:-
Etc. The CPIO/Dy. Commissioner of Police, South East District vide letter dated 30.10.2020 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.11.2020. The FAA/DCP, SED vide order dated 10.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing The PIO cum Addl DCP, South East District vide written submission dated 27.05.2021 reiterated the chronological sequence of events as narrated above.
The Appellant stated that point wise information was not provided by the Respondent since details sought such as the copy of complaint of his mother, Page 10 of 16 statements of Shri Parteesh (Servant) recorded on 28.09.2020, etc should be disclosed to him as he is the son of the complainant.
Shri Govind Sharma, ACP, South East District stated that in case the Appellant was claiming that the information on point no 1 is his own information then the public authority cannot be compelled to provide the same to the information seeker. With regard to the statements of Shri Parteesh (Servant) recorded on 28.09.2020, the same was clearly third party information exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission concurs with the stand of the Respondent during the hearing that if the information sought by the Appellant is his own which should be part of his records, the public authority cannot be compelled to disclose the same. In this context, the Commission refers to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the decision dated 17.09.2014 in the case of The Public Information Officer, The Registrar (Administration),High Court, Madras vs. CIC & B. Bharathi, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
" 24. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own 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, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect..."
Similarly, with regard to the information on point no 2, the Commission is of the view that it qualifies as third party information exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The remaining information has been provided point wise by the PIO. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(7) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/106589 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2020 seeking information on 18 points about his 20 complaints made from February to September 2020 Page 11 of 16 against House No. A-286, Double Storey, Kalkaji, New Delhi -110019 to PCR by way of dialing 100/112. regarding water dripping from the Window Air Conditioner fitted on the back side of First floor Window and water flowing from the First Floor Balcony of said house:-
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, SED vide letter dated 22.12.2020 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.01.2021. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police vide order dated 04.02.2021stated as under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing The PIO cum Addl DCP, South East District vide written submission dated 27.05.2021 reiterated the chronological sequence of events as narrated above.
The Appellant stated that no information pertaining to the first 16 of the 20 PCR calls mentioned in the RTI application was provided. Hence, the information provided was incomplete.
Page 12 of 16Shri Govind Sharma, ACP, South East District reiterated the reply of CPIO/ FAA.
Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observes that inspection of records was offered to the Appellant which he has not availed off. Hence, the Appellant may avail inspection of records from the Respondent Public Authority on a mutually convenient date and time. No other intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(8) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/149245 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.07.2019 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, 3rd BN, DAP, New Delhi vide letter dated 29.08.2019 replied as under:-Page 13 of 16
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal .09.2019. The FAA/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Armed Police vide order dated 01.10.2019 held that the information sought by the Appellant is personal in nature and prohibited to be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the disclosure of it was denied.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing The PIO cum DCP, Police Hqrs vide letter dated 22.05.2021 stated that vide letter dated 05.08.2019 available information was provided to Appellant on points 1 and 2 while remaining points were transferred to PIO, 3rd BN, DAP, New Delhi. Furthermore, no first appeal was received by them.
The PIO cum Addl DCP, South East District vide written submission dated 27.05.2021 stated that the instant matter does not pertain to their jurisdiction but pertains to PIO, 3rd BN, DAP, New Delhi and FAA, Shahdara.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant stated that no information on points 3 and 4 of the RTI application was provided by the Respondent. He stated that if any criminal case/ departmental inquiry was pending against the officials mentioned in his RTI application, the same should be disclosed and that he should not be made to run from pillar to post for seeking the same.
Smt Poornima Panthri, ACP, 3rd Bn DAP, Delhi Police stated that no information regarding ASI Sant Pal is available is available since he was not posted with them. Regarding Inspector Ranbir Singh, she stated that he superannuated from their battalion hence criminal/ civil/ departmental proceedings against him, if any, have lapsed. Furthermore, information regarding disciplinary proceedings against an officer was a matter between the employer and employee exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission concurs with the response of the PIO as only such information that is part of available record can be provided. Moreover, information regarding disciplinary proceedings against a third party employee is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the dicta of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgement of UPSC vs. R.K. Jain, LPA No. 618/2012 dated 06.11.2012 wherein it was held as under:
Page 14 of 16".............the ratio of the dicta aforesaid of the Supreme Court is that the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual."
Furthermore, in a recent judgment dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10044 OF 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 OF 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had observed as under:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
Before parting with these matters, the Commission observes that the Appellant has filed a clutch of RTI applications on multiple queries seeking information essentially relating to his disputes with his neighbour. Essentially he desires redressal of his grievance through the RTI mechanism which is not permissible as per several judgements of higher courts which have ruled that redressal of grievance falls outside the purview of the Act. Thus, flooding the public authority with multiple RTI applications/first appeals and the Commission with multiple Second Appeals on similar issues which have been heard by predecessor benches of the Commission amounts to misuse of the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicant/s to not undermine the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the system with such a barrage of RTI applications, merely claiming that he has a right to seek information.
The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed Page 15 of 16 "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona- fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
Thus, based on the abovementioned observation, the Commission disposes off the instant Second Appeals and advises the Appellant to abstain from filing multiple RTI applications on similar issues essentially related to his grievance redressal.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 16 of 16