Central Information Commission
Shri Ajit Kar vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) Sw on 18 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01267 dated 5-10-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Ajit Kar.
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) SW.
FACTS
Shri Ajit Kar of Satya Niketan, New Delhi made two applications on 2- 3-2007 to the DCP, South West District, New Delhi as follows:
Application-A "i. What are the name, designation belt number of the present respective IOs in FIR 747/98 and 748/98 PS R. K. Puram & where are these IOs Mr. Sambhu Dayal Sharma & Mr. Ombir Singh presently appointed under what rank and belt no?
ii. Give the name and address of the person who informed to the PCR on the incident day connected with the above stated FIR No. 30.9.98 night after 12 AM & what was the report?
iii. Where is constable Arunpal appointed at present who was appointed in Nanak Pura PP during September 1998?
iv. Why did the IO make a cross case and FIR 747/98 PS R. K. Puram was falsely framed against the applicant and his wife even if the accused in FIR 748/98 R. K. Puram especially the couple Mrs. Harjinder Kaur and Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar both gave unpardonably contradictory statements even on the very major facts that could lead to any lay man that they were speaking lies against the applicant which the court even disapproved discharging the applicant with the false charge of 354 IPC?
v. Why did the concerned IO of FIR 748/98 not take statements from Mrs. Ramadevi, Mr. Shasank Prabhakar and why did he not arrest the friends of the accused residing in the 3rd floor of the same building even about which the applicant had mentioned in his complaint?
vi. Why did Mr. Arunpal not oppose when about 1 AM the MLC of the applicant, his wife and of Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar were made and Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar was denied for having no injury but without signing the MLC without listening to the doctor he went away but how come against at 4 AM from another doctor he made 1 another MLC showing injury and how did the IO receive it and put the same in the record even if the MLC was false nonsigned MLC kept at Safdarjung Hospital on 30.9.98 night at about 1 AM & please name all the doctors concerned their address and the place of their present appointment.
vii. Why did the first IO of the FIR 747/98 Mr. Ombir Singh was changed in a day for FIR 748/98 and Mr. Sambhu Dayal HC were appointed I/O of the FIR 747/98?
viii. Please give a copy along with the diary no. casualty Central Registration No. of the MLC made at Safdarjung Hospital for Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar who did not listen the doctor and left the spot as the doctor got irritated as Mr. Prabhakar did not have any injury and he wanted manipulation and the I/O did not take into record of the same MLC made at about 1 AM on 30.9.98 for Mr. Prabhakar and also give a copy if the second MLC which he made fraudulently again at 4 AM on the same date by another doctor and also account for why this false MLC was taken into record by the concerned I/O without giving due importance to the first true MLC.
ix. Where is Mr. Nile Singh the then Ct of Nanak Pura PP appointed at present under which rank and belt No.?
x. How many kinds of investigation the Delhi Police make and how do the proceedings differ in each type of investigation and what are the main objectives of an enquiry and what are main aims of an investigation conducted by the Delhi Police, whether to collect evidence to prove the fault of an accused by hook or crook or to find evidence on his innocence, whether to find evidence in favour of a complainant by hook or crook or also to find evidence against him over his offence and falsehood, reply this question very seriously the matter may be used in the court.
xi. How do an inquiry officer differ from an investigation officer and under what circumstances a police officer being an inquiry officer or investigation officer apply his discretion in implicating a person?
Request-That the applicant herewith request to be given all the relevant certified copies of documents in connection with the above stated queries along with correct reply and the relevant record may be given access to inspect the files and for noting, which cannot be legally given and oblige in the interest of equity and justice."2
Application-B "1. That the applicant was illegally arrested on 8.3.2007 in connection with FIR No. 137/05 PS R. K. Puram (i) Please name the police officers present during the arrest at the spot of arrest also give their present address where they are appointed.
2. Please give the exact time when the applicant was arrested.
3. Please give the name of the other officers who were present in the office on duty but not present on the sport where the arrest was made.
4. Please name the officers on duty outside the office and also inform the applicant from concerned file where these officers were given duty for what purpose and also write the address of the spot where they were on duty also write when did they return to the PP Nanakpura as it is recorded in concerned diary?
5. Please give a copy of the arrest memo and that of the search memo.
6. Please write the address of the station and the exact spot therein where the applicant was arrested.
7. Please give a copy of what information and reason of arrest the concerned officer who arrested the applicant has given in writing to the DCP & what has he recorded in the concerned dairy in the office.
8. Who is the police officer arrested the applicant & please give a certified copy of what reasons he has recorded in the case diary?
9. A fee of Rs. 10/- has been deposited in the office of the authorised person vide receipt No. 367, dated 2-3-07.
10. Please do write the name and address of the officers from whom the PIO wanted the above stated information but the officer denied thereto.
Request-Please give information on each and every above stated question, sub question thereto and access to relevant work or document as per request as soon as possible & oblige."
Upon this he received two responses dated 26-3-07. In response to application A the response was as follows:
3"In this regard it is informed that the old records up to 2003 have been destroyed being over three years as per rules. Hence, nothing can be mentioned in the absence of record.
The rest of information either does not fall under the category of information section 2 (f) of RTI Act or concerning with legal terms/ knowledge and the same is not an information as per section 2 (f) of RTI Act. Hence, you may approach any legal- Aid-Office to get such type of knowledge."
To the second application the response was as below:
"1. The matter is under consideration of the Hon'ble Court as the case is under trial and you may pursue it regarding your contention about illegal arrest during the trial process. However, you were not arrested on 8.3.2005. the rest of information does not fall under the category of information as per section 2 (f) of RTI Act.
2. The exact time of arrest is available in the arrest memo and the same is enclosed with the case file. Hence, you may approach the Hon'ble Court.
3. The requisite information does not fall under the category of information as per section 2 (f) of RTI Act.
4. The requisite information does not fall under the category of information as per section 2 (f) of RTI Act.
5. The requisite copies are attached with the case file which is pending trial. Hence, you may approach the Hon'ble Court.
6. Same as Sr. No.2.
7. The case registered vide FIR No. 137/05 was not heinous in nature hence it is not necessary to submit the report to the DCP/SWD by the IO.
8. The name of the IO was mentioned in the arrest memo and the same was duly signed by you at the time of arrest. As regards the case diary the requisite information cannot be disclosed in view of section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.
9. Need no comments being a matter of record.
10. Same as sr. No. 3.
However, the relevant information in this regard has already been provided to you on your earlier application under RTI Act 4 as well as in reference of the orders of Hon'ble CIC vide No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00449, 467 & 468 dated 9.1.2007."
Appellant then moved a single appeal against both the replies on 3-5- '07 in which he has alleged that "information has been carelessly and fancifully denied." By his order of 1-6-07 Shri Rajesh Kumar, JCP, Southern Range New Delhi & Appellate Authority, has found as follows:
"Query No. 1: Request is about the IOs in case FIR No. 747 and 748/98 PS RK Puram i.e. name, designation, belt number, present posting etc. The same may be provided.
Query No. 2: The information cannot be provided as all the relevant documents are attached with the case files, (FIR Nos. 747 and 748/98 PS RK Puram) which are pending trial in the Court.
Query No. 3: Information already provided by the PIO/DCP/SW vide memo No. 1475/DIC/SW, dated 14.5.2007 in compliance of the orders issued by the undersigned vide Appeal No. (54) RTIA/07/SWD/3002-04/SO/SR, dated 19.4.2007.
Query Nos. 4 to 7: There is nothing which can be called information in terms of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. There is no obligation to disclose these information under RTI Act, 2005. hence, the same cannot be disclosed or provided to the appellant. These appear to be more accusations than queries for information. The appellant has no right to call for and obtain explanation of any public servant about the manner of discharge of his duties. He may have a grievance against any officer but the forum to address such grievance is surely not the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
It is pertinent to mention here that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a citizen has the right to know the status of an issue. He cannot claim that the issue should be decided or should have been decided in a particular manner.
Query No. 8: A detail reply may be given to the appellant regarding MLC.
Query No. 9: Information already provided by the PIO/DCP/SW vide memo No. 1475/DIC/SW, dated 14.5.2007 in compliance of the orders issued by the undersigned vide appeal No. (54)RTIA/07/SWD/3002-04/SO/SR, dated 19.4.2007.5
Query No. 10 & 11: There is nothing which can be called information in terms of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. There is no obligation to disclose these information under RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the same cannot be disclosed or provided to the appellant.
In the second application, mentioned at Sl. No. (ii) above, the appellant has asked to provide information on 10 points and point-wise information has been provided by the PIO/DCP/SW vide memo No. 878/DIC/SWD, dated 26.3.2007, but, the appellant has expressed his dissatisfaction on replies given by PIO/ DCP/SW.
The undersigned has carefully examined the aforesaid reply of the PIO/DCP/SWD and found that the PIO/DCP/SW has sent appropriate reply to the appellant on each point as per the RTI request."
As can be seen from the above JCP Shri Rajesh Kumar has, therefore, directed providing of information against questions 1 and 8 but has upheld the decision of the PIO on the remaining questions in both applications. In compliance with these orders the DCP, South West in his letter of 3-7-07 to appellant has provided the following:
S. No. Information mentioned Information/ Reply the Authority.
1. Request is about the In case FIR No. 747/98 IOs in case FIR 747 ASI Ombir Singh No. and 748/98, PS RK 3109/SW, was transferred to Puram i.e. name, Spl.Cell vide order No. 2536-
designation, belt No. 63, dated 15.1.2001.
present posting etc. The same may be FIR No. 748/98.
provided. HC Shambhu Dayal, No. 209/SW, was transferred to VIII Bn. Delhi Armed Force, vide order No. 8119-51/ P. Br./ PHO, dated 3.4.2001.
8. A detailed reply may The requisite MLC relates to be given to the the aforesaid cases and both appellant. the cases are pending trial.
Hence, it is not possible to provide more information regarding this matter at this stage.
6Aggrieved, Shri Kar has moved his second appeal before us only on 5- 10-07 together with a plea for condoning the delay praying as follows:
"1. That the respondent may be ordered to supply specific accurate information in time & let them reply the questions raised in this appeal.
2. That the cost may be granted to the appellant.
3. That any other relief this commission deems fit may award in favour of the appellant in the interest of justice."
In the grounds for appeal he has specifically alleged as below:
"Despite the order of the respondent the adamant PIO to hide the fault of the department has cruelly refused information rather he has made it more personal which create suspicion tending to the thought that he might be lenient to the departmental employees either for illegal gratification or bias or that of to the opposite party."
However, as will be seen, this appeal is quite unclear as to the answers to which questions he is dissatisfied. In response to our appeal notice Shri Dhaliwal, DCP cum PIO, South District, New Delhi has on the other hand submitted a detailed explanation dated 27-1-09 dealing with the applications made, the replies given and defending the information supplied, but concluding that as regards the copy of case diary in which the reasons of the arrest of the appellant has been recorded as sought by him through Point No. 8 of the application in question, this was not provided as the same is exempt under the provisions of Section 8 (i) (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The appeal was heard on 18-2-2009. The following are present.
Appellant Shri Ajit Kar.
Respondents Shri Rishi Pal, Addl DCP/ South Distt.
Shri Mahabir Prasad, ASI.
Shri L. C. Jain, LA/CP on behalf of Joint, CP, SR.
Appellant Shri Ajit Kar submitted in response to our questions that he was dissatisfied with the information sought in application-A provided in answers to questions (i) (iii) (ix) and (x) and insofar as application-B is concerned with regard to answers to questions 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10. Shri Rishi Pal, Addl. DCP, South District submitted that further details of the information sought by the appellant have been provided to him in compliance with the 7 orders of 1st Appellate Authority on 3-7-07 including citing the transfer orders of the concerned persons. Appellant Shri Kar submitted that what he wanted was not the transfer orders but the present place of posting which he understood may not be known to the DCP, South West but would be available with the Police Hqrs.
Similarly, in application-B Shri Rishi Pal submitted that the memo of arrest has been transferred to the trial court which is the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and therefore the information sought regarding question No.1, 7 and 8 is no longer held by the office of DCP, South West. On questions 3 and 4, however, Addl. DCP submitted that the officials present in the offices of the Police at any given time is not recorded, it would not be possible to provide this information. However, the information sought against question No.10, which is reproduced can be provided:
(10) Please do write the name and address of the officers from whom the PIO wanted the above stated information but the officer denied thereto.
DECISION NOTICE From the above it is clear that the information now remaining and sought by appellant is largely not available with the office of DCP, South West. Because the present postings of various officials will be on the record of Police Hqrs questions concerning the posting raised in application-A may be transferred to the CPIO, Addl. Commissioner, Police (Hqrs) who will now supply the same within the time frame mandated under the RTI Act.
On the questions raised in application-B, which concern documents that have been transferred to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate the request may be transferred to that court for consideration under the RTI Act 2005.
The above transfers may be made within 5 days from the date of receipt of this decision notice. The information on the officers referred to in question No.10 of application-B will now be provided to appellant Shri Kar within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice. Because this 8 information ahs not been provided thus far, it will u/s 7(6) be provided free of charge. The appeal is thus allowed in part, but there will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 18-2-2009 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 18-2-2009 9