Central Information Commission
Amit Mahalwal vs Delhi Police on 16 December, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/102192
Shri Amit Mahalwal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Delhi Police, Hauz Khas ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
2. PIO, Delhi Police, IP Estate
3. PIO, Delhi Police (Vigilance), Barakhamba
4. PIO, Delhi Police, PCR, Model Town-II
Through: ACP Manu Himansu; Insp. Mukesh
Kumar and HC Umesh Sharma
Date of Hearing : 15.12.2021
Date of Decision : 16.12.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.06.2019
PIO replied on : 16.07.2019
First Appeal filed on : 13.08.2019
First Appellate Order on : 16.09.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 14.01.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.06.2019 seeking certified copy of action taken on his complaint dated 29.03.2019.
The PIO/ADCP, South District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 11.07.2019 responded that the complaint received on 20.05.2019 has been assigned to the SI, Billu Kumar for taking action, which is pending for enquiry.
The CPIO, Delhi Police (HQ)vide letter dated 27.06.2019 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Police Control Room for taking necessary action.
The CPIO/ACP vide letter dated 16.07.2019 intimated that the enquiry was concluded on his complaint dated 29.03.2019 and the same has been filed on 22.05.2019.Page 1 of 2
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2019. The FAA/ADCP, Police Control Room, vide order dated 16.09.2019 stated that the information has been provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 16.07.2019.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO/PCR vide letter dated 09.12.2021 which has been duly taken on record.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and the Appellant states that this case originates out of an incident wherein three personnel of Delhi Police had attacked him. He had filed the complaint in this regard and sought action taken report from the Respondent. But he was aggrieved that appropriate action had not been taken by the Respondent. Deliberations between parties reveal that the matter has now reached the Court and trial in the case is pending before the Saket Court. Respondent stated that information from available official records were provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case and the above discussion between the contesting parties reveal that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been provided by the Respondent. It has been held on numerous occasions that the RTI Act cannot be used to adjudicate disputed questions which require proper process of trial. Litigation on the substantive issue is already pending adjudication before the appropriate Court of law.
Therefore, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no intervention is warranted in the above case, since information mandated under the RTI Act has already been furnished by the Respondent.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2