Central Information Commission
Shri Pratap Singh Gandas vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police, (Sw), Delhi on 22 September, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00785 dated 09-06-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Pratap Singh Gandas
Respondent: Dy. Commissioner of Police, (SW), Delhi
FACTS
By an application of 15-12-06 Shri Pratap Singh Gandas of Village Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj applied to the PIO, office of DCP (SW District) seeking the following information:
"1. Why the demolition of the illegal and unauthorized constructions was not carried out at Village Kishangarh by the Joint Operation of DDA & MCD on 4.12.2006, 5.12.2006, 6.12.2006, 7.12.2006, 8.12.2006 and onwards?
2. Whether the Police Force was not provided?
3. Whether the Police Force was not available?
4. Whether the DDA & the MCD demolition squad did not arrive?
5. Whether the DDA & the MCD demolition squad was not available?
6. Whether the DDA & the MCD knowingly did not carry out demolish at Village Kishangarh?
7. Whether the DDA & the MCD cancelled the demolition at village Kishangarh?
8. Whether there was lack of co-ordination between the three agencies i.e. DDA, MCD & Police?
9. Any other reasons for not carrying out the demolition at Village Kishangarh?"
On the same date he submitted an identical application to the Dy. Director (LM), DDA. We have on file the response received by Shri Gandas from the DCP dated 13-1-07 which reads as follows:
"In this regard it is informed that the matter is directly connected with the land owning agencies and it is the primary duty of civil agencies such as DDA/MCD to take action in these matters and police is to assist the land owning agency in case of demolition/ sealing stoppage of construction if required by the concerned agency. Hence, it is suggested that you should approach the concerned Land Owning Agency to get the detail information about construction and demolition etc."
We have no record on file of the result of his application to the DDA, nor has that been agitated before us by appellant Shri Pratap Singh Gandas.
1However, he moved his first appeal regarding information received from the DCP on 17-1-07 before the Jt. Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, upon which J.C.P. Shri Rajesh Kumar in his order dated 8-2-07 directed as follows:
"The matter has been clarified from PIO/DCP/SWD and information in respect of Point Nos. 2, 3 and 91 of the application dated 15.12.2006 is as under:-
The demolition programme at Village Kishangarh was fixed by DDA from 4.12.2006 to 8.12.2006. Since, there was apprehension of breaking of peace in the area during the demolition programme, hence, accordingly the outside force was requested. But, the outside force, as demanded, was not available on 4, 5, 6 and 8.12.2006, hence, the police assistance was not provided to DDA keeping in view of law and order problem. However, the outside force as well as local police was available on 7.12.2006, but on that day the DDA staff did not turn up for the demolition. The police only provide assistance to the land owning agencies as and when such requests are received."
This was followed by another RTI application to the DCP (SW) in which Shri Gandas sought the following information:
"1. Give me the name and designation of Police Office who did not provide Police Force to DDA on 4, 5, 6 and 8.12.2006 for demolition in Village Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi?
2. Give me the name and designation of the Police Officer who demanded outside Force keeping in view of law and order problem?
3. Give me the copy of the request letter by which outside force was requested?
4. Give me the name and designation of the Police Officer who apprehended breaking of peace in the area during demolition programme?
5. Whether outside force was demanded for demolition that was carried out at Village Kishangarh on 26.12.2006, 27.12.2006, 28.12.2006, 29.12.2006? If yes, give me the copy of the request letter by which outside force was requested?
6. Whether outside force was provided on 26.12.2006, 27.12.2006, 28.12.2006 and 29.12.2006? If yes, give me the copy of the letter of approval by which outside forced was provided.1
To which the 1st appeal pertained.2
7. What were grounds on which apprehension of breaking of peace in the area was based?
8. Whether there was any secret report of apprehension of breaking of peace in the area during demolition on 4, 5, 6 and 8.12.2006 in Village Kishangarh?"
To this he received a point wise reply from the DCP which, however, did not disclose the name and designation of any Police officer in answer to questions 1 and 2. Moreover, in response to questions 3 ,4 and 5 the response given was that "the same cannot be provided being an internal administrative matter of the department."
Not satisfied with this response Shri Gandas moved his first appeal once more with JCP, Southern Range on 29-3-07 upon which Shri Rajesh Kumar, JCP after discussing the matter with PIO, has decided as follows:
"I have examined the reply of PIO (DCP)SWD given to the appellant under the Right to Information act, 2005 and found that the information provided to the appellant is enough. The subject matter belongs to the demolition of different properties which is in the possession of the various persons of Village Kishangarh. Hence, the information, in deep, can not be disclosed to the appellant under section 8 (1) (d), (e) (g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as no larger public interest warrants the information."
The appeal was heard on 22-9-2008. Following are present. Appellant Shri Pratap Singh Gandas Respondents Shri Manoj Pant, Inspector.
Shri Pratap Singh Gandas submitted a request for withdrawal of his appeal as follows:
"Since I have already got the information related with the above mentioned appeal, I am in favour to withdraw my appeal."
DECISION NOTICE With the request for withdrawal received from appellant stating that he has received the information that he had sought there is no further cause of 3 action by this Commission. The request of Shri PS Gandas is, therefore accepted and this appeal is now closed.
Nevertheless, it is observed that the disposal of the 1st appeal by JCP Shri Rajesh Kumar is less than satisfactory. It is not for the appellate authority to decide as to what is "is enough" in terms of disclosure of information to an applicant unless it replies to the specific information sought. Moreover, since appellant had taken the plea that the information sought was required in order to satisfy him that corruption was not being connived at by the Department, the decision of 1st Appellate Authority that no larger public interest warrants the disclosure of information flies in the face of facts. Moreover, the first appellate authority is expected to sit in judgement on the information supplied by the PIO. For this purpose he must ofcourse hear the PIO, but is not expected to arrive at his decision in consultation with the PIO. Shri Rajesh Kumar, JCP is, therefore advised to exercise greater application of mind than demonstrated in the present case in deciding appeals that come before him in his capacity as 1st appellate authority under the RTI Act 2005. This Appeal now stands disposed of.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 22-9-2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 22-9-2008 4