Central Information Commission
Om Prakash vs Delhi Police on 9 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2023/625965
Shri Om Prakash ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, North East District ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2024
Date of Decision : 06.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.03.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 14.04.2023
First Appellate Order on : 08.05.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 28.05.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"cause of action arose in rescue of minor girls from child prostitution and human trafficking at Shastri Park North East Delhi in 2021.
1. NCPCR GOI member law related to children Mr. Yashwant Jain intervened and suppressed the rescue of minor girls on 13.04.2021
2. Mr. Dastagir Qumar, Nodal Coordinator, Northern Region, Child Line India Foundation NGO intervened on 17.04.2021 for rescue of minors.
3. 112 call with unique reference no. 3135812 dated 26.04.2021 for illegal detention of whistle blower applicant OM PRAKASH SON OF DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR BY ASI NARENDER SINGH 9868647129 FROM THE HOUSE OF RAM KUMAR HOUSE NO. C 128 OF 5, GALI NO.7 SHASTRI PARK NORTH EAST DELHI AT MIDNIGHT framing rape case under section 376 IPC.
4. Statement of applicant has been recorded by Vigilance inquiry officer Ms. Sushma Singh, mobile no. 9868535329, Seelampur, North East Delhi
5. Due to non supply of copy of F.I.R or ATR by SHO Shastri Park, applicant moved to Supreme Court of India with Writ Petition Criminal No. 242 of 2021, 137 of 2021 and 42 of 2023.
In the above premises and cause of action and applicant being a Petitioner in Person in PIL Writ Petition Criminal 242 of 2021 is seeking following information and documents:Page 1 of 3
1. Whether or NOT F.I.R has been registered on the complaint of whistle blower applicant for rescue of victims from the child prostitution and human traffickers, which contains and pertains to applicants own family members
2. If Yes, then supply the copy of either F.I.R OR ATR in the above cause of action dated 13.4.21, 17.4.21 and 26.4.21 at Shastri Park North East Delhi area
3. Supply the list of rescued victims from the clutches of child prostitution and human traffickers along with victims contact details and their whereabouts
4. What is the name of on duty Station House Officer SHO Shastri Park North East Delhi during the cause of action arose on 13.4.21, 17.4.21 and 26.4.21
5. What is the name of present SHO at Shastri Park North East Delhi."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 08.05.2023 stated as under:-
"I have examined all the relevant record available in the RTI file. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 15.03.2023 received in this office vide RTI No. 552/2023 dated 17.03.2023, for want of information/regarding cause of action arose in rescue of minor girls from child prostitution and human trafficking at Shastri Park, North-East, Delhi in 2021.
In this regard the PIO/NED has provided the reply to the appellant vide his office memo No. 1436/RTI Cell/ NED, dated 12.04.2023.
I have gone through the relevant record as well as comments of the PIO/NED and found that the PIO/NED has provided the information available on record to you against your RTI application vide his office memo No. 1436/RTI Cell/ NED, dated 12.04.2023 well in time as per RTI Act-2005. Beside this, the PIO/NED is hereby directed to provide the requisite information again in respect of your application within 20 working days under RTI Act 2005."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 31.07.2024 has been received from the Appellant being aggrieved with the response sent by the Respondent.
A written submission dated 30.07.2024 has also been received from the Respondent stating that reply dated 12.04.2023 was sent to the Appellant including PG Cell Enquiry Report and all relevant papers. The FAA's order dated 08.05.2023 duly noted the same. The FAA's order was duly complied with vide response dated 10.07.2023 and has been submitted with the written submission.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: ACP Sanjay Kumar; Insp. Manjeet Tomar- SHO; SI Surinder Singh, Ct. Sunil Chauhan were present during hearing.
The Appellant contended that he is not satisfied with the information furnished to him and requested that the Respondent may be directed to provide information sought by him.
Page 2 of 3The Respondent reiterated their contentions from the PIO's reply and the detailed written submission dated 30.07.2024 filed before the Commission, duly supported by the relevant annexures stating that the information held by the public authority including the PG Cell Enquiry Report has already been furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing submissions averments of both parties, it is noted that appropriate reply containing information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act had been duly sent by the PIO, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
It is noted that the written submission dated 30.07.2024 filed by the Respondent before the Commission contains detailed, comprehensive and self explanatory information. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to send the Appellant a copy of the written submission dated 30.07.2024 with all the annexures as filed before the Commission, through speed post, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission, within one week thereafter. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information stands duly disseminated to the Appellant, no further direction is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)