Central Information Commission
J S Bhatia vs Delhi Police on 7 October, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DEPOL/C/2018/163392
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/163544
Shri J S Bhatia ... अपीलकता /Appellant/
Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,Delhi Police, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
O/o the ADCP/PIO, West District,
Rajouri Garden, Delhi - 110027
Through: Sh. Suman Pushkarna - ACP, HQ
Date of Hearing : 05.10.2020
Date of Decision : 07.10.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply
First FAO dated Complaint/Second
Nos. on dated Appeal Appeal dated
dated
163392 30.05.2018 25.06.2018 Nil 28.07.2018 17.10.2018
163544 28.05.2018 26.06.2018 02.07.2018 02.08.2018 17.10.2018
(1) CIC/DEPOL/C/2018/163392
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2018 seeking information on 02 points regarding Regularisation File dated 2008 being subject matter of FIR No. 213/2017 PS Rajouri Garden:
1. PLEASE PROVIDE ME CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED IN THE GRIEVANCE NUMBER 2018003744 RECEIVED FROM THE Page 1 of 5 OFFICE OF THE LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI, AS PER RECORDS OF WEST DISTRICT PS RAJOURI GARDEN
2. PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ENTIRE FILE and RECORDS AS RETAINED BY THE DELHI POLICE OFFICERS or IO OF CASE FIR NO. 213 OF 2017 PS RAJOURI GARDEN IN RESPECT OF REGULARIZATION FILE OF YEAR 2OO8 PERTAINING TO PROPERTY NO. D 45 RAJOURI GARDEN.
(Queries reproduced verbatim) The PIO/ADCP vide letter dated 25.06.2018 in respect to query no. 1 informed the appellant that the complaint was received from Computer Cell/W vide No. 43/C.Cell/W (ID 2018003744) dated 04.05.2018 and diarized in Complaint Branch, West District vide Dy. No. 9486/C/W dated 04.05.2018. The said complaint enquired through ACP/Rajouri Garden and on the basis of enquiry report of ACP/Rajouri Garden the same has been filed. Copy of the enquiry report of said complaint (total 02 page), was provided to the Complainant. Further, the respondent enclosed a copy of the enquiry report received from SHO/Rajouri Garden in response to query no. 2.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil, the FAA vide order dated 28.07.2018 upheld the reply of PIO observing that as per comments received from PIO, copy of the regularisation file in case FIR No. 213/17 could not be provided as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act because the same is required in FIR No. 1373/14 u/s 468/471/34 IPC PS Rajouri Garden.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing is held through audio conference which is scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for the hearing and the Complainant began his arguments stating that the PIO had denied information to him and strongly disputed the Respondent's contention that he has filed a number of complaints. During the course of hearing, when the Complainant addressed his arguments, it transpired that the documents submitted by the Complainant had been switched, in the two cases filed by him. The Complainant has submitted a written note after the hearing, objecting to the denial of information by the respondent citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Complainant has cited various judgements on this point, to substantiate his arguments.
Decision It is noted upon perusal of records and from the averments of the Complainant that his primary objection is against the outright denial of the regularisation file and related information by the respondent, without any justification. The respondent-PIO has provided some enquiry reports to the complainant but the copy of regularisation file has been denied on the ground that the same is required in FIR No. 1373/14. It is noted that neither party has clearly stated the Page 2 of 5 facts of the case, particularly the link between the regularisation file and the FIR No. 213/2017 and the other FIR no. 1373/2014.
Be that as it may, the provision of RTI Act, 2005 cited by the Respondent seeking exemption from disclosure of the regularisation file, is Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which envisages exemption from disclosure of information on the following ground:
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
It is well established law that merely citing any provision of law is not sufficient to support any contention unless applicability and relevance thereof to the case under reference is substantiated. Specifically, while seeking exemption from disclosure of information under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Courts as well as this Commission have on numerous occasions emphasised that the public authority must establish clearly how disclosure of information is likely to impede the process of investigation. In this case, the respondent has failed to justify denial of information. The respondents have not submitted any statements clarifying their stance, till the hearing or even thereafter. The Commission is not convinced by the respondents' stand and directs that Sh. Suman Pushkarna - ACP, HQ should submit a report explaining the denial and why no penal action should be initiated against the respondent for the blanket denial of information without offering any reasonable cause. Upon perusal of the explanation submitted by the respondent, the Commission shall adjudicate the aspect of violation of the RTI Act, 2005. This explanation must reach the Commission by 15.11.2020, failing which appropriate proceedings shall be initiated on the basis of available records of the case, as per law.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/163544 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 28.05.2018 seeking information on 06 points:
1. PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF ALL THE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED / MARKED TO THE VIGILANCE CELL / UNIT OF THE WEST DISTRICT, PS RAJOURI GARDEN IN THE YEAR 2017 BY ONE SANDEEP SINGH BHATIA AND/OR JASPREET SINGH BHATIA, AS PER RECORDS.
2. PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF ALL THE BAYAANS AND WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS / ENCLOSURES/ EVIDENCES SUBMITTED APROPOS /IN THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY TO THE VIGILANCE CELL / UNIT OF THE WEST DTSTRTCT, PS RAJOURI GARDEN BY AFORE MENTIONED PERSONS IN THE YEAR 2017.
3. PLEASE PROVIDE ME CERTIFIED COPIES OF ALL THE ENQUIRY REPORTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER OF THE VIGILANCE CELL / UNIT OF THE WEST DTSTRTCT, DELHI POLICE APROPOS THE RECEIPT OF THE Page 3 of 5 COMPLAINTS/BAYAANS / REPRESENTATIONS/ENCLOSURES EVIDENCES, ETC.
4. PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF ALL THE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED / MARKED TO THE VIGILANCE CELL / UNIT OF THE WEST DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY TO ASI SAHAB SINGH, PS RAJOURI GARDEN IN THE YEAR 2017 BY ONE SANDEEP STNGH BHATIA AND/OR JAPPREET SINGH BHATIA, AS PER RECORDS.
5. PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF ALL THE BAYAANS AND WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS / ENCLOSURES/ EVIDENCES SUBMITTED APROPOS / IN THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY TO THE VIGILANCE CELL / UNIT OF THE WEST DISTRICT, PS RAJOURI GARDEN SPECIFICALLY BY ASI SAHAB SINGH BY AFORE MENTIONED PERSONS IN THE YEAR 2017.
6. PLEASE PROVIDE ME CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ENQUIRY REPORTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER SPECIFICALLY ASI SAHAB SINGH OF THE VIGILANCE CELL / UNIT OF THE WEST DISTRICT, DELHI POLICE APROPOS THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPLATNTS/BAYAANS / REPRESENTATIONS/ENCLOSURES/EVIDENCES, ETC.
(Queries reproduced verbatim) The CPIO/ADCP, Delhi Police vide letter dated 26.06.2018 informed the appellant that as per record of Complaint Branch, West District, the appellant had filed a number of complaints during the mentioned period and a lot of documents are attached with the complaints. Hence, appellant was advised to inspect the relevant & available record of Complaint Branch, West Distt. on any working day from 11.00 A.M. to 05.00 P.M. within a month and get the requisite documents as per section 4 (1)(d) (Cost & Regulation), under RTI Act-2005.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.07.2018. The FAA vide order dated 02.08.2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing is held through audio conference which are scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for the hearing and theAppellant states that he was denied information, even when he visited the respondent for inspection of records. The respondent strongly refutes the claim of the appellant and states that the factual position is to the contrary.
Decision Deliberations between parties during the course of hearing reveal that in this case, the respondent has not sought to withhold information deliberately and offered inspection of records through the PIO's reply. Unfortunately, the Page 4 of 5 appellant has not been able to inspect the records, and there are contradictory submissions from both parties regarding the same, none of which have been substantiated. This Commission cannot sit in trial over correctness of the versions of the contesting parties, under the scheme of the RTI Act, 2005 and finds it expedient that a specific date and time for the inspection be fixed, to avoid further dispute on this aspect. Accordingly, with the mutual consent of both parties present for hearing, respondent is hereby directed to ensure that all relevant records are made available for inspection by the appellant on 19.10.2020 at 11 am. The respondent shall submit a compliance report about the inspection proceedings thus carried out and documents, if any, identified and provided to the appellant, by 30.10.2020. It is made clear that non compliance of these directions shall attract penal action.
The aforementioned cases stand disposed off, with these observations and directions.
वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा)
Y. K. Sinha(वाई िस हा
Information Commissioner((सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514
Page 5 of 5