Central Information Commission
Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 30 July, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002262
July 30, 2013
Appellant : Shri Rakesh Kumar
Respondents : Delhi Police (Headquarters)
Date of Hearing : 18.07.2013
ORDER
The present appeal filed by Shri Rakesh Kumar against Delhi Police was taken up for hearing on 18.07.2013 when the Respondents were present through Dr. A. Khan, Addl. DCP/NW, Shri P.M. Kaushik, ACP, Shri Ram Kumar, ACP, Shri B.S. Khatanna ACP, Shri Kale Ram, ACP, Shri Ram Singh, ACP, Shri Mohammed Ali, Addl. DCP and Shri Vijay Singh, Inspector. The Appellant, however, chose not to be present.
Facts of the case:
CIC/SS/A/2012/002262 Page 1 of 5 2
2. The Appellant filed his RTI application dated 21.11.2011 with the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi seeking information against 10 points regarding maintenance of law and order and explosive rules.
3. The CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs vide his letter dated 15.12.2011 transferred this application to the CPIO, Police Headquarters (PHQ), New Delhi for response.
4. On receipt of the Appellant's RTI application, the CAPIO, PHQ vide his letter dated 21.12.2011 further transferred it to all the districts of Delhi Police including the CPIO, Licensing Branch. This was followed by a letter dated 22.02.2011 of the CPIO/PHQ, Shri Mangesh Kashyap informing the Appellant of the transfer of the RTI application and enclosing the CAPIO's letter dated 21.12.2011.
5. Thereafter the Appellant received replies/information from the CPIOs of the respective districts as well as the CPIO, Licensing branch. However, on not being satisfied with these replies, the Appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.
Decision:
6. During the hearing, the representatives of the CPIO, PHQ inform the Commission that the CPIO, PHQ, vide his letter dated 26.12.2011, had provided to the Appellant information/reply in respect of point nos. 1 to 4 of his RTI application, while also informing him that information relating to point Nos. 5 to 10 would be furnished by the CPIO, Licensing branch and the CPIOs of the respective districts, to whom his application had been transferred. As for point nos. 11 to 17, the CPIO, PHQ had informed the Appellant that the information sought in said points did not 2 pertain to it. The representatives of the CPIO, PHQ also produces a copy of said communication before the Commission for its perusal. They also place on record the reply dated 27.12.2011 given by the CPIO, Licensing branch, Ms. Varsha Sharma by which she had furnished the reply/information in respect of point nos. 2 to 10. The representatives of the CPIO, South District also file a copy of their reply dated 04.01.2012 by which they had answered only point nos. 1 & 10 of the Appellant's RTI application, while also informing the Appellant that information sought in point nos. 2 to 9 did not pertain to them. On being asked by the Commission, the representatives of the CPIOs of other districts also inform that they are not concerned with all the queries of the Appellant's RTI application.
7. Having heard the submission above and perused the records, the Commission notes that like the previous case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000024 (S.C. Agrawal Vs Delhi Police), the then CPIO, PHQ, Shri Mangesh Kashyap in this case as well did not examine the contents of the RTI application of the Appellant and transferred whole RTI application to all district units, while the information sought therein did not completely pertain to them. This act of the then CPIO has not only caused delay in providing the information to the Appellant, but has also led to multiple proceedings at different levels. The only valid transfer was to Licensing branch since some queries did pertain to them.
8. The present CPIO, Shri K.K. Vyas has in this case as well neither taken trouble to appear before the Commission despite being summoned through Commission's hearing notice dated 14.06.2013, nor has he taken note of the replies of the district units who have stated that the information does not pertain to them. CIC/SS/A/2012/002262 Page 3 of 5 4 By doing so he (CPIO/PHQ) has yet again failed to provide the information to the Appellant.
9. In view of the above, the Commission now hereby directs that show cause notice be separately issued to both the CPIOs (present and former) Shri Mangesh Kashyap and Shri K.K. Vyas asking them why penalty u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon them for prima facie delaying/obstructing the supply of information to the Appellant by transferring his RTI application to the CPIOs, who were not concerned with the same.
10. The present CPIO, PHQ is also directed to provide information/reply in respect of remaining points (which have not been answered by other districts) to the Appellant. In case the information or part thereof does not pertain to PHQ, the CPIO, PHQ shall collect the information from its holders and provide the same to the Appellant within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
11. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated by (D.C. Singh) 4 Deputy Registrar Address to the parties:
1. Shri Rakesh Kumar G27, Budh Vihar PhaseI Delhi 110086
2. The Central Public Information Officer & Deputy Commissioner of Police Establishment Branch Delhi Police Headquarters MSO Building, 6th Floor I.P. Estate New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority & Joint Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Headquarters MSO Building, 6th Floor I.P. Estate New Delhi CIC/SS/A/2012/002262 Page 5 of 5