Central Information Commission
Shri R.K. Arya vs Deputy Commissioners Police (Dcp), ... on 13 April, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2007/001547, 1546, 1601 & 1583 dated 3-12-2007 & 11-12-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri R.K. Arya
Respondent: Deputy Commissioners Police (DCP),
(i) Economic Offences Wing (EOW)
(ii) East District
FACTS
These are four appeals held in the following files moved by Shri R.K. Arya of Krishna Nagar, Delhi against the PIO and DCP (EOW) & PIO and DCP, East District as follows:
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001547 Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001546 Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001610 Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001583 File Nos. CIC/WB/A/2007/001547 and CIC/WB/A/2007/001610 Both these Appeals are identical except in that the information sought is with regard to two different Police Officers: Inspector Shri R.K. Gulia in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001547 and Sub Inspector Shri Suresh Lakra in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001610. The information sought in both the cases is as follows, with the name of Sub Inspector Shri Suresh Lakra replacing that of Inspector Gulia in the application concerning SI Lakra "1. Please tell the residential address of Mr. R.K. Gulia, Inspector (EOW) crime, Delhi Police having office at Qutub Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
2. Please supply the copy of Income Tax return filed by Mr. R.K. Gulia, Inspector, to Income Tax Department and to you for the years 2002 to 2006.
3. Please give the details of properties, which have been furnished by Mr. R.K. Gulia, Inspector (EOW) Crime, Delhi Police at the time to join the service for the year 2005 and 2006.
4. Please tell what is gross salary and carrying home salary of Mr. R.K. Gulia, Inspector (EOW) Crime, Delhi Police.1
In both cases an identical response was received dated 2.4.2007 refusing the information/documents, sought u/s 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In both cases appeals were moved on 20.4.2007 and an identical decision dated 15.5.2007 given by Shri Ranjit Narayan, JCP (Crime) as follows:
"Having carefully gone through the contents of appeal and material available on record, it is found that the appellant has sought personal information mentioned above in respect of Inspr. R. K. Gulia, which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Undoubtedly, disclosure of this personal information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The exemption of information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, has, therefore, been correctly applied by the PIO. The decision of PIO is upheld."
Appellant's prayer before us is also identical and reads as follows:
"Relief sought against the act and conduct/ gross negligence of the said PIO and the First Appellate Authority under Right to Information Act, 2005."
In both cases penalty has been sought against the CPIO and Appellate Authority.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001546 In this case in an application of 8-3-07 to the PIO, DCP, EOW Shri R.K. Arya has sought the following information:
"1. Provide the Certified copies of Roznamcha/Daily Diary, both Registers A&B dated 19.2.2007.
2. Provide the Certified copies of Roznamcha/Daily Diary, both Registers A&B dated 3.3.2007.
3. Mr. Prabhakar, D.C.P., are you aware that Mr. Raj Kishore, Inspector, EOW Cell, Crime Branch, had appeared in a complaint case of Rajender Kumar Arya vs. Inspector R.K. Gulia & Anr. In the court of Shri Sanjay Jindal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 19.2.2007 and 3.3.2007 or not? Please give reply in Yes or No.
4. Please tell who has directed or authorized him to appear on aforesaid dates in the court.
5. Are you aware Mr. Prabhakar, D.C.P., that the Hon'ble Court has not called Inspector Raj Kishore on both the aforesaid dates? Please tell the reason as to why he appeared before the Hon'ble court and why did he waste his time?2
6. Mr. Prabhakar, D.C.P., are you aware that Mr. Raj Kishore filed a report containing three pages without asking by the court to file a report by Crime Branch? Please tell why did he waste the time of department and why he caused the loss to the department for spending his entire service time in making of such type of false, frivolous and lengthy report?
7. Please tell what is the gross salary of Mr. Raj Kishore?
8. Please tell how much time he spent in making such false, frivolous and lengthy report dated 19.2.2007?
9. Please tell when Mr. Raj Kishore left the EOW Cell after making his attendance in the attendance registers, for the court and when he arrived at EOW Cell after attending the court on both the dates, i.e. 19.2.2007 and 3.3.2007."
To this he received a point-wise response on 7-4-07 as follows:
"1. &2. The daily diary of an investigating unit contains many entries which cannot be revealed as it may be used to hamper the investigation and enquiry of cases and the same falls under the category of exemption under section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Since EOW is the investigating unit of case FIR No. 140/06 P.S. Krishna Nagar, Delhi and the matter of the complaint case was related to the said case, IO Inspr. Raj Kishore was called by the Ld. PP of the concerned Court for a factual report of the matter, so that the Court could be apprised with the same.
4. It was an official duty and he needed to attend to the call of the Ld. PP appearing for the state.
5. There was no wastage of time and his appearance was to assist Ld. PP and the Hon'ble Court with the factual position of the case.
6. The report was submitted before the court with the consultation of the Public Prosecutor and the allegation that the same was false and frivolous is denied.
7. This is a personal matter which has nothing to do with the Public activity. Hence the same cannot be supplied being exempted under 8(i) J of RTI Act, 2005.
8. The allegation of report being false and frivolous is not true.
9. There is no DD entries dated 19.2.2007 and 3.3.2007 lodged in this regard by Inspr. Raj Kishore."
Dissatisfied, appellant then moved his first appeal before JCP (Crime) on 5-5-07, upon which he received the following order dated 26-5-07:
3"It is found that the information sought related to the investigation of case FRI No. 140/06 PS Krishna Nagar. The PIO has examined the request and furnished point-wise consolidated information to the Appellant. As per record, the information supplied is found correct. The copies of DD entry of both register i.e. A&B dated 19.2.2007 and 3.3.2007 have been rightly denied cannot be furnished to the Appellant as it pertains to the investigation of the referred case, which is still in progress and the Appellant is an accused in this case. The PIO has correctly denied the details of gross salary of Inspr. Raj Kishore invoking section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act as it would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual.
It is further observed that the Appellant has questioned the visit of Police Officers which were undertaken to the court in connection with the referred case, which prima facie does not constitute any information in Public domain under the RTI Act, The PIO has, however, been proactive and responded adequately."
Appellant's prayer before us in 2nd appeal in this case is as below:
"Relief sought against the act & conduct/gross negligence of the said PIO & the First Appellate Authority under Right to information Act, 2005."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001583 In this case appellant Shri Arya moved an application on 22-3-07 before Shri Ajay Chaudhry, DCP (East District) seeking the following information;
"1. Please tell at which time, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Arya was brought to Krishna Nagar Police Station by S.I. Suresh Lakra & Inspector R.K. Gulia (EOW) Crime Branch, Delhi Police on 5.4.2006 in relation to FIR No. 140/2006 u/s 63,65 of copy Right Act and u/s 420/120B pf IPC of PS Krishna Nagar.
2. Whether any D.D entry was made regarding bringing of Mr. Rajender Kumar Arya to Krishna Nagar Police Station in relation to above noted case on 5.4.2006 in relation to FIR No. 140/2006 u/s 63,65 of copy Right Act and u/s 420/120B of IPC of PS Krishna Nagar.
3. Please tell, as to whether any entry was made regarding keeping the applicant in lock-up, if yes, please supply the copy of the same.
4. Please tell when applicant was released or discharged from Krishna Nagar Police Station.
5. Please tell at what time applicant was removed from P.S. Krishna Nagar to Darya Ganj on 5.4.2006, if he was then 4 produce the record of the same and supply the copy of the same from your record.
6. Please supply copy of arrest register dated 5.4.2006 prepared by Krishna Nagar Police Station.
7. Please supply the copy of D.D entry of both registers A&B dated 5.4.2006.
8. Whether any entry was made by S.I. Suresh Lakra or Inspector R.K. Gulia in any record or register of PS Krishna Nagar. Please supply the copy of all those entries which were made by aforesaid persons/police officials on 5.4.2006."
To this he received a response on 23-3-07 as follows:
"1. Rajendra Kumar Arya, R/o B-4/9A, Lal Quarter, Krishna Nagar was brought to PS Krishna Nagar on 6.4.06 at 4.40 AM by SI Suresh Kumar of IPR Section/EOW/Crime Branch, Delhi Police.
2. Yes, the DD Entry was lodged regarding the arrest of Rajendra Kumar Arya on 6.4.06 vide case FIR No. 140/06 in this regard.
3. DD Entry No. 8B dated 6.4.06 was made regarding keeping Rajendra Kumar Arya in the lock up. Copy of the same cannot be provided as it is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. On 6.4.06 at 6.40 AM the applicant was taken from PS Krishna Nagar further investigation of the said case.
5. No entry has been made in this regard as per the record of PS Krishna Nagar.
6,7 & 8 Copies of the requested records cannot be provided as same are exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1)
(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Shri Arya then made his first appeal specifically complaining against the refusal of information under point Nos. 6, 7 and 8 on 20-4-07, upon which he received an order dated 17-5-07 holding that the matter pertains to the PIO, EOW and did not to the DCP, East District as follows:
"I find case FIR No. 140/06 u/s 63, 65 of Copy Right Act was registered at P. S. Krishna Nagar against the appellant. The investigation of this case is being carried out by the EOW of Crime Branch, which is reportedly pending investigation. In the instant case, the PIO/ East District is only a custodian of record, yet the PIO/ East have given you the details of the DD entries.5
The information pertains to EOW of Crime Branch where the case is being investigated. Therefore, the PIO/ EOW being the custodian of information will take a final decision about the documents sought. In this regard, the appellant was informed about the present application being forwarded to PIO/ EOW to take a decision on the same."
Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is as follows:
"Relief sought against the act & conduct/gross negligence of the said PIO & the First Appellate Authority under Right to information Act, 2005."
All four appeals were heard together on 13-4-2009. The following are present.
Appellants Shri Rajender Kumar Arya Shri Ramesh Kumar Respondents Shri K.K. Vyas, DCP Shri Ramesh Chander, Inspector Shri M.K. Mishra, S.I. Shri Ganga Sahai Meena, ACP/HQ/E Attention of respondent was invited by us to Section 4 (1) (b) sub sections (ix) and (x) which requires that every public authority will publish within 120 days from the enactment of the Act the following suo moto:
(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
DCP, Shri K.K. Vyas submitted that other than question No.1 asking for the residential address of the two officers the public authority was willing to provide the remaining information.
In the remaining two cases the issue is disclosure of DD entries. Although, the DD entries in this case are different, this issue has been decided upon in our decision in file No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01694. The parties have agreed that that decision would apply in this case also.
DECISION NOTICE 6 File Nos. CIC/WB/A/2007/001547 and CIC/WB/A/2007/001610 In these two cases DCP Shri K.K. Vyas has clarified that the officers concerned are no longer with EOW but are (i) Mr. R.K. Gulia with Crime Branch and (ii) Shri Suresh Lakra with Security. Although, already explained to DCP part of the information sought by the appellant regarding these officers is fully disclosable suo moto u/s 4 (1) (b) (ix) and (x) of the RTI Act, before ordering full disclosure on the information sought both parties being a third party in these cases must be given the opportunity to be heard. The hearing in both these cases is, therefore, adjourned to 1st May, 2009 at 11.30 a.m. when appellant and third parties may appear. The DCP, EOW having made his points need not appear.
In case of file No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001546 there is also a similar request for providing the emoluments of Shri Raj Kishore which has been refused u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. This information will now be disclosed to appellant within 10 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice.
For the remaining information regarding disclosure of DD entries our decision in file No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01694 will also apply in this case as follows:
"The investigation being complete and the information sought now no longer being an issue u/s 8 (1) sub-section (h) of the Act with regard to impeding the prosecution, the information sought by appellant Shri R.K. Arya regarding DD entries with regard to any case in which he is party will be supplied to him within ten working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice."
Similarly in the present case CPIOs EOW and East District will supply the information sought by appellant Shri R.K. Arya regarding DD entries with regard to any case in which he is party, or indeed specifically cited by him, within ten working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice.
The appeals are, therefore, allowed in part. However, because the responses have been given within the framework of the law as understood by 7 the public authority there can be no question of misleading information "having been knowingly provided" and there will be no penalty.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 13-4-2009 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 13-4-2009 8