Central Information Commission
Shri Jk Mittal vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police (Dcp) ... on 16 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01402 dated 1-11-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri JK Mittal
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) East
FACTS
By an application of 21-5-07 Shri JK Mittal of Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi applied to the DCP (East) seeking the information on 17 points concerning a complaint filed against him and his family. To this he received a response dated 19-6-07 as follows: -
"1. Yes, it is correct that a complaint has been filed against you regarding contracting on 6th floor and running an office from your residence. The complaint is pending enquiry. The name of the complainant and copy of the complaint cannot be provided to you as the same are exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005.
2. ACP/ Preet Vihar has called you in his official capacity to enquire into the complaint against you.
3. Yes, it is correct that a complaint has been received against you. Moreover, the residents of Priyadarshini Vihar have also given complaint/ application to DCP/ East regarding deteriorating law and order situation in the area and that you and your wife too have filed writ petitions in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the removal of iron gates erected by local residents for their safety. No FIR has been registered so far as the complaint is pending enquiry.
4. There is no specific number of complaints received in the office of ACP/ Preet Vihar and being an administrative matter has no concern with your complaint.
5. Police cannot allow any person to malign the image of anyone in its presence. If such complaint is received which amounts to cognizable offence, necessary legal action will be taken. However, such acts are within the purview of non-cognizable offence.
6. No such complaint of two chain snatching and two robberies in the area of Priyadarshini Vihar have been received in the PS Shakarpur. However, a case FIR No. 291/07 u/s 380/34 IPC dated 10.4.07 was registered on the complaint of Smt. Sudha Jain.
7, 9, 10, & 11 It is correct that a letter signed by twenty-six female residents of Priyadarshini Vihar was received in the DCP/ 1 East office on 3.5.07. No FIR has been registered on the complaint as the same is pending enquiry. During the last two years the following cases have been registered from Priyadarshini Vihar: -
Extortio Molesta MV House MV Vehicle Day IT
n tion of Theft theft Accessorie Burglary P
Women s
A- 1 - - - 1 1 -
Block
B- - 2 4 2 2 - 1
Block
The copy of the letter dated 3.5.07cannot be provided to you as the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005.
8. No specific allegations have been made against you and your family in the said complaint dated 3.5.07.
12. It is wrong to suggest that the law and order situation is deteriorating in the area of Priyadarshini Vihar. The colony is well guarded by the guards and the iron gates installed by the residents are deterrent to anti social elements. You may obtain the copy of the comparative list of crime for A-Block, Priyadarshini Vihar after depositing the requisite fee under RTI Act, 2005, at this office.
13. Your complaint has been enquired into and the female members who visited the DCP/ East Office were contacted and they have stated that they visited your house to discuss the threat to security/ safety of the area after the demolition of a wall on service lane near A- 161, Priyadarshini Vihar. As you and your wife were not available there they returned. They denied making any threat or objectionable remarks against you and your family.
14. Police has not given any direction to keep any of the Iron Gates closed, which are installed in Priyadarshini Vihar.
15. You may obtain the requested copies regarding guards deployed in the area of Priyadarshini Vihar after depositing the requisite fee under RTI Act, 2005, at this office.
16. Police has no concern with the funds and the payment of the employees of RWA.
17. MCD was contacted in this regard and the guidelines from MCD have been received. You can obtain the copy of the same after depositing the requisite fee under RTI Act, 2005, at this office."
Shri JK Mittal had in the meantime, not having received letter of 19-6- 07, moved his first appeal on 21-6-07which he amended on 2-7-07 after 2 receipt of a copy of the response of 19-6-07 from CPIO. Upon this, Shri Alok Kumar Verma, 1st Appellate Authority, JCP, New Delhi Range after detailed examination has found as follows:
"I have examined the file and relevant records available in the file and find as per Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005, PIO provides the information. In the instant case, the information was provided by Addl. DCP-I Shri Kanan Jagdesan, an IPS officer as DCP-cum-PIO/East District6 was on leave and in his absence Addl. DCP-I/East was looking after the work of the district in the capacity of DCP/ East District. There is no violation of the RTI Act, 2005.
The PIO/ East District has clarified that correct and information permissible under RTI Act, 2005 was provided to the appellant within the stipulated time. Name of the complainant and copy of complaint was correctly denied as the document sought is exempted from disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005 and third party interest is involved. Since enquiry into the complaint against the appellant is pending enquiry, divulging name of the complainant would be against the interest of complainant. As regards number of complaints received in the office of ACP/ Preet Vihar is concerned, no specific number of complaints can be given and being an administrative matter, the matter has no concern with the complaint. Regarding the complaint dated 12.5.07 of the appellant, the same was marked to DCP/ East District for enquiry. No derogatory remarks against appellant or his wife in the presence of ACP/ Preet Vihar. No complaint from the residents that they have been terrorized or under phobia has been received in East District. The alleged newsletter contains the minutes of the meeting and represents expression of the residents, which does not required police action. In last two years only one case vide FIR No. 291/07 u/s 380/34 IOPC was reported on 10.4.07 by the residents of A-17 to A-28, Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi. About the false complaint of deteriorating law and order situation in Priyadarshini Vihar, it was only the apprehension of the residents, which they have tried to bring into the notice of police. No police action is warranted. The guidelines regarding erection of iron gates has been discussed with MCD officials the RWA has been requested for proper consideration and compliance. I also find the PIO/ East District has allowed some documents sought vide application dated 21.5.07 at Sl. Nos. 12 & 15, the same can be obtained against a fee of Rs. 2/- per page. I have asked PIO/ East to make the calculation as envisaged u/s 7 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 and apprise you of the same. As regards the documents sought relating to third party the PIO/ East District is being asked to issue notices to the third party as envisaged u/s 11 (1) of RTI Act, 2005 and apprise you the outcome of the notices in due course.3
However, during personal hearing, the appellant reiterated the allegations that the Gate in question is still not opened and it is locked and the residents are parking vehicles causing hindrance to access through the Gate. The matter has already been disposed off in the appeal of Smt. Vandana Mittal.
Regarding appeal dated 9.7.07 and 13.7.07 addressed to Addl. CSP/ Vigilance and General Administration ,the same are also processed in this office seeking information with regard to letter dated 2.7.07 within the period of 48 hours as envisaged u7/s 7 (1) of the RTI endangering life and liberty of the applicant. The appellant has requested to provide action taken report etc. regarding his complaint sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 20.5.07 against Dr. P. Karunakaran, ACP/ Preet Vihar, Shri S. P. Tyagi, SHO/ Shakarpur and SI Sanjay. The PIO/ East District has clarified that an enquiry on complaints dated 20.5.07 and 2.7.07 is being conducted by Shri K. L. Meena, ACP/ PG Cell/ East District. However, an interim reply in this regard has also been sent to you on 24.7.07. This is a long standing dispute over erection of gate, and the appellant is merely apprehending danger to his life and liberty. Since there is no specific threat to the life and liberty, therefore, Section 7 (1) of the RTI act, 2005 is not attracted. However, I am asking PIO/ East District to conclude the enquiry at the earliest, examine the security aspect and to inform you the outcome."
Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
"It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Central Information Commission may in the interest of justice be please to:
(A) pass the appropriate order for quashing the impugned order dated 30.7.2007 and give direction to the Respondents/ PIO to provide the desired information forthwith and give the reason for not taking the action under the law;
(B) declare that information sought by the appellant was related to appellant life or liberty under section 7 (1) of RTI Act, 2005;
(C) declare that copies of complaint, statements and investigation report as sought by the appellant is not exempted under section 8 (1) (g) & (h) or section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005;
(D) take appropriate action against the responsible officers in accordance with law including imposing penalty prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005;"
This plea has been offered on the following basis:
4"Because the Ld. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred while summarily disposing of the four Appeals and passed a routine and mechanical and order, without considering the facts and information sought by the appellant and merely reproduced the statements/ information/ averments made by the POI in his letter dated 19.6.2007 hence impugned order is non speaking, not sustainable and is liable to be quashed."
The appeal was heard on 2-3-2009. The following are present.
Appellant Shri JK Mittal Respondent Shri Ganga Sahai, ACP/ HQ/E Shri Ganga Sahai, ACP (Hq.) East submitted that in response to our earlier decision on appeals from Shri J.K. Mittal and his wife Vandana Mittal the information sought by appellant has already been provided to him as per orders of 15-10-08 by Shri S. Dash, DCP (East). This covers the information sought in the present application. Shri J.K. Mittal, however, submitted that he has not received replies to question Nos. 13, 15 and 17 of the original application, which are also the subject of the present appeal. He also raised questions whether the PIO was authorised to transfer an application to another PIO of equivalent rank only on the grounds of residence of the applicant. He wished to know what action has been taken against the erring police officers in which context he specifically referred to a noting of 6-10-08 on the file of New Delhi Range in which it has been clearly decided as follows:
"It has got aggravated because of abuse of authority by the erstwhile ACP Preet Vihar- who tried to summon and pressurise Mittal in a case of unauthorised construction etc which was not even happening. In fact ACP tried to pressurise him without any legal powers."
He also contended that the issue of life and liberty has been illegally ignored and in this context invited our attention to the fact that in his decision of 30-7-07 on first appeal JCP, New Delhi Range without accepting the plea for life and liberty has directed the PIO to "examine the security aspect and to inform you the outcome". This is despite the fact that in his letter of 20-5-07 Shri Mittal and his family has brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police the following:
5"Many persons, who visited our residence with intention to fight, have abused our family and more particularly our one year beloved child."
He has also invited our attention to the complaint lodged by his neighbour Shri Phool Chand Bansal which is against one Shri J.P. Mittal, whereas he being J.K. Mittal was not concerned, yet made the subject of harassment which is the reason that he has sought action against the police officers whose actions have been found to be unwarranted by the police themselves.
DECISION NOTICE We find the point Nos. 13, 15 and 17 in the application of 21-5-07 which is the subject of the present appeal are identical with those that we have already dealt with in our appeal file No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01283. In fact the present appeal appears to be a duplicate. In that case the following was our decision:
"In this case exemption from disclosure has been sought u/s 8 (1) (g). However, other than stating that the matter is still under investigation Shri Kannan Jagadeesan, IPS, O/o DCP (East Distt.) Delhi has not given any reason how such disclosure would so endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement. In the judgment of Ravinder Bhat J. in WP No. 3114/2007, Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors it has been clarified in a definitive judgement that even where exemption is sought u/s 8 (1) this has to be treated as an exception whereas the Rule is disclosure. This matter is, therefore remanded for further examination by 1st Appellate Authority Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Jt. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range who will examine in what way such a disclosure will in fact so endanger the life and physical safety of any person. Insofar as the plea is concerned that the information cannot be given because the investigation is still in process, such a plea is unacceptable in light of the fact that at no stage of the processing of this application has Section 8 (1) (h) been relied upon for seeking exemption from disclosure. If, therefore, it cannot in the opinion of First appellate Authority be established that such disclosure will indeed endanger the life of personal liberty of any individual or any witness the information sought will be disclosed in full.
The appeal may be disposed of within 15 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. It is clarified however that if 6 not satisfied with the decision of 1st appellate authority it will be open to appellant Shri Mittal to move his second appeal on the information provided u/s 19(3).
In compliance Shri S. Dash, PIO & DCP, East District has already supplied Shri Mittal the information sought as cited by respondent Shri Ganga Sahai, ACP/ HQ/E in the hearing and referred to above. If Shri Mittal is dissatisfied with that response he is free to make a first appeal before the appellate authority u/s 19 (1) against the information obtained in compliance with our orders. But because the present appeal is simply a duplicate of one already disposed of, the present appeal is infructuous and is dismissed.
Reserved in the hearing, after examining earlier disposal of several appeals/complaints moved before this Commission by Shri Mittal this decision is announced in the open chamber on the sixteenth day of March 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 16-3-2009 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 16-3-2009 7