Central Information Commission
Mrpardeep Sahni vs Delhi Police on 3 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001199/SB
Dated 03.03.2016
Appellant : Shri Pardeep Kumar,
C12/511, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi110 053.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Delhi Police, O/o the PIO, North East District,
Old P.S. GTB Enclave,
Delhi110 095.
Date of Hearing : 03.03.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.01.2014
CPIO Replied on : 05.02.2014
First Appeal : 04.02.2014
FAA's order : 05.03.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 21.03.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Pardeep Kumar filed an application dated 20.01.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate General of North East District, Delhi Police, seeking information relating to final action taken 1 report on his applications, including (i) FIR lodged against certain individuals under IPC 120A, 387 for threatening to kill/cause grievous hurt to him and his wife.
2. The appellant filed the second appeal dated 21.03.2014 before the Commission on the ground that CPIO has provided him false information and FAA has not imposed any penalty on the CPIO for providing false information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Pardeep Kumar and the respondent Shri Ram Chander, APIO and ACP, Delhi Police were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he had sought action taken report on his two complaints dated 01.10.2013 and 02.10.2013 filed with PS Bhajanpura. He was informed that photocopies of the complaints attached with his RTI application have not been received in PS Bhajanpura. Further, despite the FAAs' order dated 05.03.2014 no information has been provided to him. Hence, action should be initiated against the respondent.
5. The respondent submitted that point wise information has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 24.03.2014. The respondent further submitted that an updated status in the matter has also been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 01.03.2016. A photocopy of the inquiry report conducted on his complaints dated 01.10.2013 and 02.10.2013 has also been provided to the appellant on 01.03.2016.
Decision:
2
6. The Commission observes that due information has been provided to the appellant. The Commission also notes that though the information was not provided within the stipulated time, it cannot be said that the CPIO acted consciously and deliberately with intent to deny the information sought by the appellant. Further, there is nothing to establish that the CPIO malafidely denied the information sought by the appellant.
7. In WP(C) 3114/2007 Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs. Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 03.12.2007 held that "......This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the public information officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act cannot be issued....."
8. In view of the above, no further action is required on the prayer of the appellant for taking action against the CPIO concerned under the RTI Act.
9. The Commission further directs the CPIO to provide again the action taken report on the appellant's complaints dated 01.10.2013 and 02.10.2013 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision.
10. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy 3 (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 4