Central Information Commission
Shri Inder Singh vs Deputy Commissioner Police, (Dcp) ... on 27 August, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00385 dated 6-5-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant: Shri Inder Singh
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police, (DCP) Outer District
Deputy Commissioner Police, (DCP) West District
Decision Announced 27.8.'09
FACTS
By an application of 6.8.2007 Shri Inder Singh of Nangloi, Delhi applied to the DCP, Vigilance seeking the following information:
"May I know the action taken on my request forwarded vide Commissioner of Police letter under reference."
To this Shri Inder Singh received a response dated 3.9.2007 from Shri Robin Hibu, DCP (West) as follows:-
"You can collect a copy of report sent to worthy Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, New Delhi on 31.7.07 from this office i.e. Room No. 313, 3rd Floor, P. S. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi- 10027 on any working day i.e. Monday to Friday at 10 AM to 5 PM after depositing the requisite copying charges @ Rs. 2/- per copy.
Further, the relevant documents i.e. copies of various statements etc related to above enquiry on your complaint can not be provided to you as per provisions laid down u7/s 8 (1) (g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
It is, therefore, requested that if ,you have any query/dissatisfaction under the RTI Act, 2005, you re also invited to meet personally with the undersigned on any working day from Monday to Friday in between 4.00 PM and 5.00 PM during visitors hours to seek further clarification."
However, for further clarification Shri Inder Singh then moved a second application on 11.9.2007 with the following request:-
"Provide me the copies of my statements recorded."
This application was transferred with a letter of 10.10.2007 by DCP (West) to DCP (outer District). This letter seems to have been replied on 2.11.2007, no copy of which reply is on the file but to which a reference is made in a letter of 9.1.2008 from Dr. Sagar Preet, DCP (Outer District) in 1 response to a subsequent request for information in which he states as follows:-
"Your statement was recorded on 30.4.07 and no statement of yourself was recorded on 31.5.07. The copy of your statement dated 30.4.07 has already been provided to you vide this office letter no. 453/RTI Cell/ OD dated 2.11.07."
Shri Inder Singh then moved another application before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on 14.11.2007, which upon transfer received the response of PIO Dr. Sagar Preet of 9.1.2008 referred to above. Shri Inder Singh then moved another application before the Chairman, NHRC dated 8.2.2008 with the following plea:-
"The information's (under RTI Act 2005) applied vide my application dated 11th September, 2007 could have been provided to me. As such directing me for obtaining the information's from the DCP Outer Distt, is neither a constructive/ positive nor a justified action that too, on an invitational letter of the DCP (West) Distt."
This application was transferred to the Police Hqrs. by Shri Shantanu Sen, OSD (Public Grievances) to LG on 14.2.2008 which was then transferred by PIO Shri Kewal Singh, Addl. Commissioner of Police Hqrs to the following three DCP's;-
"The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) West Distt, P. S. Rajouri Garden, Delhi The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) Vigilance Branch, Office Location: Delhi Police Bhawan, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) Outer Distt. Road No. 43, Pushpanjali, Delhi Appellant's prayer in his complaint before us is as below:-
'a) The IO, ASI Om Parkash, PS Nangloi, Delhi- 110041 of this said case has not displayed his impartial Roll and firmly remained with the accused and is denying my statements recorded on 31st may, 2007 and I have signed accordingly on 31st May 2007 for taking action against the accused and the copy of which I have not received so far. Thus it has helped the accused to be refrain/ out of reach for the Legal action against them as submitted in my following applications;-2
(a) Application dated 14th may 2007 reproduced in application dated 06th July, 2007.
(b) Application dated 11th September, 2007 (copy attached).
(c) Application dated 14th November, 2007, (copy attached).
(d) Application dated 17th December, 2007, (copy attached).
(e) Application dated 08th February, 2008, (copy attached).
b) Continuously requested for the legal action as submitted against the accused who carried my son from his house and responsible for the death by burning and the accused are still out of the grip of the justice, resulting 3 minor age of school going girls the bereaved daughter of my Rakesh have become Orphan and there is non to look after them and no relief has been provided to them.
c) The Legal action against the accused/ accused supporting person may please be taken, as requested in my statements of dated 31st May, 2007, reproduced from my application of dated 14th May, 2007 as incorporated in my application of dated 06th July, 2007. Copy addressed to the Addl. CP (Vig.) Delhi.
My application of dated 08th February, 2008 (copy attached)."
In response to our appeal notice, DCP has after discussing the details of the applications made by Shri Inder Singh to the DCP and NHRC has submitted as follows vide letter dated 25.8.2009:-
"The complete information available on record has already been provided to the appellant."
The response of the DCP (Outer District) is also of 25.8.2009 which is as below:-
"It is worth mentioning here that the above said matter relates to P. S. Nangloi, Delhi which falls under the jurisdiction of West District, Delhi w.e.f. 1.10.2008 and the complainant/ appellant has not mentioned any thing adverse against or any grievance with Outer District in the present complaint/ appeal filed by him as all the requisite information/ reply was provided to the complainant/ appellant under RTI Act, 2005 which was available in Outer District, Delhi at that time. There was no violation of Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence, the present complaint of the complainant/ appellant is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed."3
The appeal was heard on 27-8-2009. The following are present. Appellant Shri Inder Singh Respondents Shri Prabhat Kumar, Sub Inspector.
Shri Om Kumar, ACP/ Vigilance Outer.
Shri E. J. Rosario, ACP/ Vigilance.
Shri K. L. Meena, ACP, RG (for CPIO) Appellant Shri Inder Singh submitted that a deliberate attempt has been made to mislead him and that is why his application of 11.9.2007 has been transferred only on 10.10.2007 when the requirement of the law is that it should be transferred within 5 days of its receipt. He submitted that he had made a statement on 31.5.2007 which was recorded on that date and an attempt is being made by the I.O. to conceal this information. Shri Om Kumar, ACP, Vigilance (Outer District) submitted that such information as was held in the Outer District has been provided and there is no statement of 31.5.2007. He also submitted that now P. S. Nangloi has been transferred to West District so it is only the DCP (West District) who is the appropriate authority to obtain information with regard to that PS. Shri Prabhat Kumar, SI submitted that the reason for delay in transferring the application was only because this could be done after reference to the concerned Police Station and obtaining the answer there from, which took time.
DECISION NOTICE Because the PIO in this case, DCP (West) has been assiduous in providing the response to the initial application of Shri Inder Singh dated 6.8.2007 through his letter of 3.9.2007 in which he has, in fact, provided more information than actually asked for, we cannot accept conclusion of malafide in delay in transfer of the application of 11.9.2007. However, plea of appellant Shri Inder Singh in this case is correct. A transfer should be made strictly in accordance with the mandate of sub section 3 of section 6 and if there is a delay, reason for the same must be recorded. In this case the matter concerned a PS which surely the DCP's office would know had been 4 transferred to another police District, which is a sad commentary on the procedure of DCP (West) in handling RTI applications.
However, the key issue in the entire matter hinges on the copy of the alleged statement of 31.5.2007, which according to respondent does not exist. This has been deduced from an enquiry from P. S. Nangloi which is at present under West District. The information is sought by a father who has lost his son under tragic circumstances and is, therefore, deserving of extra sensitivity. DCP (West) Shri Sharad Aggarwal is, therefore, directed to appoint an Officer not below the rank of ACP to inspect the records in the P. S. Nangloi in order to verify whether such statement exists there, or if there was such a statement whether it has been destroyed. The latter will attract the provisions of sub- section (1) of section 20. In this context DCP may consider also offering inspection of the file to the appellant Shri Inder Singh. Having done so a report will be submitted to this Commission though DCP (West) District by the IO within 20 working days from the date of receipt of this decision notice and not later than 30th September, 2009. This Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 27-8-2009 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 27-8-2009 5