Central Information Commission
Vijay Prakash Gupta vs District Session Judge on 9 October, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No. CIC/YA/A/2016/002245
F. No. CIC/DPREL/A/2016/304121
F. No. CIC/DSESJ/C/2017/187007
Date of Hearing : 21.09.2017
Date of Decision : 21.09.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Vijay Prakash Gupta
(through video conference)
Respondent : 1. Dy. Assessor & Collector
South Zone
Through: Ms. Kuheli Chaudhary,
CPIO ; Mr. Karan Singh
2. Directorate of Prosecution Delhi,
GNCTD
Through:- Sh. Balbir Singh - PIO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. Filed on PIO reply First appeal FAO
002245 07.01.2016 21.02.2016 09.03.2016 05.04.2016
304121 30.04.2016 26.05.2016 08.06.2016 14.07.2016
187007 08.10.2016 22.10.2016 - -
Since the captioned appeals have been filed by the same appellant and
involve similar queries, they are clubbed for the purpose of adjudication
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/YA/A/2016/002245 Appellant has referred to notice no/SDMC/A&C Deptt./SZ/RKP/2015/3745 dated 17.02.2015 issued by SDMC, Assessment Collection Department, New Delhi under Section 123D of DMC Act, 1957 to the tax payer Mr. Kailash Chander R/o 211, Satya Niketan, New Delhi for the period 2003 to 2016.
Appellant vide RTI application dated 07.01.2016 sought attested/certified copies of the following information in the format as specified by the Ministry Page 1 of 8 of Personal, PG & Pension, Department of Personal & Training, New Delhi under Office Memorandum No. 10/1/2013-IR, dated: 06.10.2015. a.) What does "Age Factor" "1" mean/denote?
b.) What does "Structure Factor" "1" mean/denote? c.) What does "Occupancy Factor" "2" mean/denote? d.) What does "Occupancy Factor" "1" mean/denote? e.) What does "Use Factor "1"mean/denote?
f.)Copy of Notice dated 17.02.2015 issued by SDMC raising demand bill of Rs. 2,33,866/- under Unit Area Method.
g.) Copy of Property Tax Bill issued by SDMC raising demand bill of Rs.
2,33,866/- under Unit Area Method.
The CPIO vide letter dated 21.02.2016 stated that (a) to (e) question are available on the website of SDMC i.e. www.mcd.propertytax.in and information (f) to (g) had already been supplied vide letter dated 08.10.2015 to the appellant and department has nothing more to say. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts of the case Both parties have appeared for the hearing. He alleges that State Exchequer is being deprived of the revenue which should be collected by way of property tax because of certain miscreants. By his RTI application, he had sought the information in order to highlight that the owner of the property in question has also been illegally avoiding the payment of taxes. In support of his case, the appellant has quoted extensively from his submissions, placing reliance on various judgments of the Delhi High Court as well as the Commission.
Respondent states that appellant was informed to obtain information about the structure factor, occupancy factor etc as available on the website. As for the remaining information pertaining to notice/s etc. as sought by the applicant, the PIO submits that vide letter dated 08.10.2015 information had already been provided to the appellant in response to an earlier RTI application. The PIO in fact stated the same answers were provided to the appellant even in her reply dated 21.02.2016.
Appellant admits to receipt of the earlier response from the PIO alongwith the copies of documents as sought by him. However, he expresses his objection to the effect that attested/certified copies were not provided to him.
Respondent orally states that an approximate sum of Rs. 2.33 lacs was the total outstanding property tax till 2013-14 with respect to the property in question, out of which the Respondent's records reveal that payment of Rs. 90,000/- has been received so far. For the amount still unpaid by owners of Page 2 of 8 the property, the Respondents stated that Demand Notice and Show Cause notice, in terms of law, have been issued and the subsequent proceeding of Attachment of the property will be initiated as the next course of action.
Decision After hearing the parties and perusal of records, it is evident that information as sought by the appellant have been provided. However the real focus of the appellant is to know about pendency of property tax if any, with respect to the property no. 211, Satya Niketan, New Delhi. The Respondent-PIO is accordingly directed to provide a Revised Reply stating the current status with respect to pending tax with respect to the property in question and action taken for the defaults in payment of tax, as narrated orally during the hearing. Copy of this Revised Reply shall be furnished to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. Furthermore, it I noted that the appellant has submitted a written submission by email dated 17.09.2017, emphasizing his quest for "certified copies" of the information. In view of his specific plea, the Commission directs the Respondent to additionally furnish another copy of the same documents, in response to queries number f) and g) - this time with the endorsement "True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act".
Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
CIC/DPREL/A/2016/304121 The appellant was seeking authenticated copies of the statements recorded by both the Investigation officers in case FIR no. 131/2012 dated 04.10.2012 u/s 498A, 406 r/w 34 IIPC, SPUW&C, PS Nanakpura, New Delhi of his relative and other witnesses and authenticate copy of the application dated 27.04.2016 filed by the appellant before the Ld. MM, Ms. Richa Gulsain Solanki, Dwarka Court, Delhi.
CPIO vide letter dated 25.05.2016 replied as under:-
3(iii)(a). The case FIR no. 131/12 u/s 498/406/34 IPC was registered at PS CWC, Nanakpura New Delhi. After completion of investigation the charge-sheet of the case has been submitted in the concerned court on 30.08.2013 alongwith all investigation proceedings and documents collected. Hence no document is available at PS CWC, Nanakpura new Delhi
(b). As the application dated 27.04.2016 has been filed before the Ld. MM Ms. Richa Gulsain Solanki, Dwarka Court, this information does not related to this unit.Page 3 of 8
Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA informed that the information was denied by the PIO on the ground that prosecution is not supposed to supply any document pertaining to the police file, which is a part of case diary as per law. Moreover, applicant/appellant can demand the deficient copies u/s 207/ Cr. PC from the concerned Court by applying for certified copies of the complete judicial file and paying the requisite fee to the copying agency and hence, the request of the appellant was declined vide order dated 26.05.2016. The FAA dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant has advanced detailed arguments from his written submissions and cited the decision of Adesh Kumar vs. UOI passed by the Delhi High Court among other decisions of various other High Courts, emphasising his plea seeking the information.
Respondent states that the chargesheet has been filed against the appellant herein and the PIO reply has clarified that upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet of the case has been submitted in the concerned court alongwith all investigation proceedings and documents collected. Hence the appellant is at liberty to seek the information from the concerned Court. The Respondent has further drawn attention of the commission to a decision of a co ordinate Bench of the Central Information Commission whereby the same issues have been adjudicated upon in Case no. CIC/SB/C/2016/000348 dated 17.02.2017.
Decision:
After perusal of records and upon hearing the parties, it is found imperative that the decision of the co ordinate Bench may be referred. Relevant portions of the said decision are noteworthy while adjudicating the case at hand.
7. ..................................................... The complainant further submitted that he just wants the copy of the various statements recorded during the investigation in the matter. The complainant further requested the Commission that since he had filed a complaint, appropriate action be taken against the erring officials as per the provisions of RTI Act for deliberately not providing the information to him.
8. The respondent, CPIO, Prosecution Branch, Dwarka Court submitted that information in compliance with the order of the Commission dated 26.02.2016 could not be furnished to the complainant since out of all the statements sought by the complainant, only the statement of Mrs. Madhu Malhotra is available in the Police file and the Judicial file and the same would Page 4 of 8 be provided to the complainant on 01.03.2017 which is the next date of hearing in the matter in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. With regard to the remaining statements sought by the complainant, the respondent submitted that the statements were not recorded separately and are not part of the judicial file. The respondent further submitted that some of the statements were recorded as a part of Police Case Diary and the Police Case Diary cannot be provided to the complainant till the conclusion of the trial in view of Section 172(3) of Cr.P.C which states that "neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court.....".
Decision:
9. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records including the Police file, agrees with the respondent that all the statements as sought by the complainant except for the statement of Mrs. Madhu Malhotra are not available in the Police file. The Commission further notes that out of the remaining statements as mentioned in the RTI application, some were not recorded separately under Section 161 Cr.P.C and form a part of Police Case Diary which cannot be disclosed in view of Section 172(3) Cr.P.C and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order in WP(C) No.12428/2009 dated 15.12.2012.
The Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission in case no.CIC/SA/A/2015/000136 dated 05.06.2015, wherein, it was held that the copies of the Police Case Diary cannot be provided. The Commission finds the justification for non-furnishing of the information to the complainant plausible. The Commission, therefore, observes that there is a reasonable cause for not providing information to the complainant. Thus, it cannot be said that there was a malafide intent to withhold information from the complainant and in absence of any malafide intent, it would not be appropriate to initiate penal proceedings....................."
Thus, firstly, as replied by the PIO, the desired information has been submitted by the Respondent before the concerned Court, from where the appellant is at liberty to seek copy, with due permission of the Court. Secondly, it is noted that the co ordinate Bench of this Commission in the decision discussed in the preceding paragraph, had dealt with all necessary aspects in details and after proper adjudication and appreciation of the facts dismissed the plea of the appellant. No new facts have been put forth in the instant case before this Bench. Hence, the Commission is not inclined to re- adjudicate the issues afresh since the actual queries dealt with in the RTI application are barred from being re adjudicated by virtue of principle of Res Judicata.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Page 5 of 8CIC/DSESJ/C/2017/187007 The appellant refer to the Court Rules titled "Preparation and Supply of Copies" by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The sought following information:-
1. Certified copies at the copying branch, Dwarka District Court, New Delhi in CC:1107/2/13, titled : State vs. Vijay Prakash Gupta & Ors. Pending on the file of the Ld. MM, Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi vide CA receipt No. 011063(CRIMINAL), dated 27.07.2016 for Rs. 500/-.
2. Requested the Copying branch to sent the said Certified copies by post as per Rule prescribed by the High Court as per Rule prescribe by the High Court of Delhi titled as "Preparation and Supply of Copies" under Volume IV Chapter 17 at Rule 11(C ) under the heading " Charge for copies and manner of payment thereof".
The CPIO/Administration Officer (Judl.) informed that point wise information to the requisite queries provided by the Copying Agency, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant alleges that the CPIO has wilfully suppressed the information by not providing the annexures and furnishing only the covering letter. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Delhi High Court and other Courts in his written submissions and admitted that he did receive the requisite information by Regd. Post on 20.12.2016. He has highlighted that the CPIO vide his earlier reply dated 25.10.2016 had sent only the covering letter without any annexures weighing 20 gms, and only after the intervention of the FAA vide order dated 03.12.2016, complete reply was received by the appellant on 20.12.2016, which weighed 40 gms.
Respondent states that the information was furnished even earlier alongwith the covering letter dated 25.10.2016 and once again the same documents comprising of covering letter and annexures were re- sent on 17.12.2016, which was received by the appellant on 20.12.2016. Respondent further explained that the earlier postal consignment contained only two pages of the covering letter and one annexure, hence the parcel weighed only 20 gms while post FAA's order, additional documents in the form of First Appellate Authority's order led to the parcel being weighed at 40 gms.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission notes that admittedly and undisputedly the information as sought by the appellant have Page 6 of 8 been provided to him on 20.12.2016. The appellant has sought initiation of penal action against the allegedly errant Court official for sending him incomplete response i.e. only the covering letter without any annexure. No malafide on the part of the Court officials could be established nor evidence adduced in support of contentions by the appellant. In any case, this is an exercise in futility considering that the aim and ambit of RTI Act is to ensure supply of available and correct information to the seeker, which in this case has been provided well in time.
At this juncture, the attention of the Commission is diverted to some decisions of a co ordinate Bench of this Commission while deciding similar cases filed by the appellant against the same Respondent public authority. In cases no. i) CIC/SA/A/2014/000965 dated 30.03.2015; ii) CIC/SA/A/2015/0010166 dated 05.06.2015 and iii) CIC/SA/C/2015/000021 and CIC/SA/C/2015/000033 dated 20.04.2015, the conduct of the appellant has invited adverse observations from the concerned Bench resulting in dismissal of the cases. One particular observation has been consistent in all the three decisions and is reproduced herein:
"......5. The Commission was told that this appellant has fil ed several RTI applications on a court case filed by the appellant's wife against the appellant, in the Saket Court, which is subjudice. Without attending the hearing, the appellant is seeking several details and keeping the Court staff not available to attend the other regular and necessary work. All these RTI applications are repetitions, mostly frivolous/vexatious and intended to cause difficulties to the RTI wing of the Saket Court to adversely affect the case filed by his wife. The appellant is trying to run a simultaneous/parallel trial through RTI Act. It is misuse of RTI. This RTI application of the appellant itself is an obstruction or impediment to the proceedings before the court of law. Once he is subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court of law, either as a petitioner or resp ondent, he will have to follow and complete that process in a Court of law. He has to explore the possibility of getting information through that process only because he is already in the Court of law. The common sense and the common law explains that a citizen cannot run processes for two remedies at a time on the same subject matter each of which will obstruct the other.
6. The appellant is not expected to harass his wife and alo ng with her, entire court staff because she questioned his harassment under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Commission considers this kind of RTI applications as misuse and wants the appellant to refrain from misuse of the Page 7 of 8 RTI Act. The Commission warns the appellant not to repeat this again. The respondent authority has every authority to take appropriate action prosecution or civil, besides seeking costs against the appellant.
7. The action of the appellant in seeking information through the RTI Act about a case pending for trial, without attending it reflect malicious intention and it would amount to obstruction in the legal proceedings and also disrespect to the process of adjudication.
8. The Commission rejects the second appeal as misuse of RTI and directs the PIO to place this order before the Judge for appropriate action against the appellant with regard to harassment of court staff with frivolous applications under RTI, obstructing their work and judicial proceedings of the court, loss of time and revenue on furnishing copies of documents and disrespect towards the court by not attending the court...."
The admonishment of the Appellant because of his conduct needs no further narration than a reading of the aforesaid observations repeated in the other two decisions of the Commission. In the given circumstances, no further direction of this Bench is deemed necessary in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Page 8 of 8