Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Delhi Police on 21 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2023/652414
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 14.02.2025
Date of Decision : 14.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.09.2023
PIO replied on : 30.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : 01.10.2023
First Appellate Order on : 23.10.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 01.12.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Community Policing, whistleblowing by senior citizen, retired Commissioner of Bharat Scouts and Guides, Haryana:
Supply each and everything with all copies and concerned file notings, related to my complaints, World Peace Institute of United Nations with their associated NGOS:
1. NGO Darpan, MSME Udyam Registration, Trademarks under class 41 and 45, Government officials are cheated with false claims, through many NGOs -Trust, and Companies, Brochure needs confiscation, these are managed by- (1). MR. TAPAN KUMAR RAUTARAY (2). MRS. RITANJALI RAUTARAY, and others like Mr. Anjani Kumar, being associated.
Their past history and track records, along with emails, bank accounts and transaction, their claims and demands in public domain, each and everything provided to the Cybercrime and Subhash Place Police Stations of Delhi.
2. Action taken reports of complaints lodged being cognizable offense in legal terms but same was mishandled by both Investigating public servants of Cyber cell along with PS Subhash Place, besides it threatening call impersonating Delhi Police official, I have audio recording and broachers with email as on dated 17-11-2022, demanding money Total Fee: 2,75,000/- INR Processing Fees- 1,00,000/- INR Page 1 (Including in the total fees) -Honorary Doctorate Award, along Designation:
International President-Honorary Ambassador.
3. World Peace Institute of United Nations (WPIUN) is an Inter Governmental Organization, what is this in public domain and attached Broachers, already examined and filed by Delhi Police, supply copies of all file
4. Certificate will be duly signed by Govt. Authorities.
5. Honoured by Govt. Minister/International Authorities and Ambassadors.
6. Certificate will approved by Govt. of India and United Nations.
7. Emblems and Names (Prevention of improper use) Act 1950, insulted without devnagiri words Satyamev Jayete, violated legislation, concerned Police officials failed to perform their duties, even concerned Ministries, asked Chief Secretary of Delhi twice, letters provided. Even never confiscated objectionable award.
8. Misguiding public servants, tendering false and fabricated information in public domain, for gain and profit, is heating being criminal conspiracy, is a cognizable crime, breaching public trust, financial crime as well.
9. Copies of legal notices under section 154(3) CrPC to the Delhi Police, filing before 156(3), along with Report submitted by Police, bearing reference 10982/2023, with 459-Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Court.
10. Requirement understanding order No. 410/2012 of Delhi Police, with Community Policing along with Whistleblower Act, never complied.
11. Mr. Anjani Kumar, levelled against me, after thought, false and fabricated, defamatory and bogus allegations, to counter my allegations, needs scientific investigations as Brain mapping, lie detector, polygraph - NARCO test, as I have tendered affidavit."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 01.10.2023.
The PIO-cum-Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-(I), North-West District, Delhi vide letter dated 30.10.2023 replied as under:-
"Point No. 1-3:-The information has already been provided to the applicant in response to his earlier applications under RTI Act, 2005. Point No 4-6:-Does not pertain to this office. Point No 7-8:-The information sought does not come under the purview of "Information" as described in section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Point No 9:-Does not pertain to this office. However, your RTI application is being sent to PIO/District Courts (North West), Rohini, Delhi for sending the information to you directly under RTI Act, 2005.
Point No 10:-The information sought does not come under the purview of "Information"
as described in section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005. However, the copy of standing Order No. 410/2012 (GUIDELINES FOR INITIATING ACTION AGAINST FALSE COMPLAINTS) is enclosed herewith, which is self explanatory in this regard (Total-01 page). Point No 11:- The information sought does not come under the purview of "Information" as described in section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005."
In regard to his first appeal, the FAA vide order dated 23.10.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO and also annexed the same.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 2 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Pal, Insp. Bahan, Insp.Vijay, SI Vikas Singh, Shir Shubham Chand, ACP, SI Surinder Singh, SI Sunil Kumar, Insp Samma Devi, HC Om veer Singh, HC Manoj Kumar, Insp Rajeev Kumar, HC Amit Singh, HC Vinod Sherawar, Insp Mandeep Singh, SI Anku Sejwal, Insp.Rajesh Kumar, SI Ghanshyam.
The reply provided by the Respondent No.1 and the written submissions of Respondent No.2 were considered.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but Page 3 which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)