Central Information Commission
Mrrajiv Batra vs Delhi Police on 10 March, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
TEL; 01126179548
Decision No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002884/VS/06392
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002884/VS
Dated: 20.03.2014
Appellant: Shri Rajiv Batra,
R/o. A4C/20, 2nd Floor,
Janak Puri, New Delhi110058
Respondent: Public Information Officer/
Addl. DCP, Delhi Police,
South West Distt., Sector 19,
Dwarka, New Delhi
Date of Hearing: 10.03.2014
O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 28.4.2012 seeking information about his complaint faxed on 5.12.2009 to the office/residence of the Police Commissioner, including its movement, date of receipt in the Police Station, reasons for not taking immediate action, etc. The PIO, while giving information on some points, informed the appellant on 17.5.2012 that his RTI application had been transferred to PIO/South West District, Delhi on 2.5.2012 for sending a reply directly to him.
2. On not receiving any reply from the CPIO, the appellant filed his first appeal on 7.6.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA, while generally agreeing with the reply of PIO, directed him to reconsider the RTI request and to provide a comprehensive pointwise information to the appellant within 3 weeks. The appellant approached the Commission on 25.10.2012 in second appeal. Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing personally.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 28.4.2012 and reiterated the five points made therein. The appellant stated that the focus of his RTI application is to know the movement of his complaint dated 5.12.2009 and the action taken by the police thereon. The appellant stated that the background of the matter is that the police lifted his car parked in front of his house, and there was also the accompanying fact of a pending civil suit connected with the matter.
5. The respondent stated that the police took action as per the normal practice after getting a PCR call on 2.12.2009. The police then went to the spot and found an 'Indica' car in a state of abandonment covered with dust and tyres without air. The respondent stated that the police brought this vehicle to the police station under the relevant provisions of the Delhi Police Act.
6. The appellant stated that the crux of his RTI application was on the following:
(i) The movement of the appellant's complaint datewise;
(ii) Whether it was legally correct to tow his car (reference point 3 of the RTI application); and
(iii) Why was he given the notice after a lapse of two years from the episode (reference point 4 of the RTI application).
7. The respondent stated that in so far as the movement of his complaint is concerned, the situation at this point of time is that the complaint is not traceable. The respondent informed that the police official who was handling the complaint was also asked to explain and an enquiry was conducted against that police official and on the basis of that enquiry, the police reached a conclusion that no cognizable offence was made out. In the meantime the concerned police official was transferred to another unit. The respondent stated that the supervisory officer of the I.O. of new place of posting was informed about the lapse and it is assumed that some action would have been taken against that official.
8. As regards point (ii) made in para 6 above, the respondent stated that action taken by the respondent was legally correct in terms of the Delhi Police Act stating that it was the duty of the police to take into charge any unclaimed property taking into account the circumstances.
9. The respondent stated that in so far as point (iii) made in para 6 above is concerned, this has to be viewed in the correct perspective. The respondent stated that they approached the transport department to identify the owner of the vehicle and after it was known, a letter was sent to the appellant. Decision
10. The respondent is directed to (i) enable the appellant to inspect the relevant file and to provide photocopies of the pertinent papers; and (ii) send a comprehensive reply on the lines stated in the hearing, pertinent to the RTI application within 30 days of this order.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commission Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer