Central Information Commission
Prince Agarwal vs Delhi Police on 6 April, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/105550
Shri Prince Agarwal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 05.04.2022
Date of Decision : 06.04.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.08.2019
PIO replied on : 16.09.2019
First Appeal filed on : 30.09.2019
First Appellate Order on : 31.10.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint dated : 04.02.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.08.2019 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-East Distt,vide letter dated 16.09.2019 replied as under:-Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the response receivedfrom the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.09.2019. The FAA/DCP, North-East District, vide order dated 31.10.2019 stated as under:-
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-East District, vide letter dated 28.11.2019 replied as under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide email dated 01.04.2022 and 04.04.2022 wherein it was stated that he has not received the information on point no 1 of the RTI application. As part of the revised reply from the PIO, Delhi Police after the order of the FAA, Delhi Police, the RTI application was forwarded to PIO, Karkardooma Court, Shahdara on the pretext that Delhi Police does not have "office copy" of the status report filed by the IO/SHO PS Nand Nagri.
The Appellant's representative, Shri Shiv Kumar Agarwal, participated in the hearing through audio conference. He reiterated the above-mentioned written submissions and argued that in compliance with the order of the FAA, only information on point no 2 was given. However, the copy of the action taken report submitted by the IO/SHO to the Court in CT No 591/2019 as sought in point no 1 of the RTI application was not provided.
The Respondent represented by Shri Bachchu Singh, ACP, North East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that point wise information as per available record has been provided to the Appellant in compliance with the FAA's order vide letter dated 28.11.2019 wherein it was categorically stated that the status report as sought in point no 1 was not available with them and can be obtained from the PIO, KKD Courts, Shahdara, Delhi. He further stated that the chronology of events pertaining to this case has been explained in the written submission dated 04.04.2022 sent to the Page 2 of 3 Commission, a copy of which was also provided to the Appellant through registered post and whatsapp which was acknowledged by the Appellant during the hearing.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent as only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided. The Commission also notes that similar issues have been previously heard and adjudicated in CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/103496 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/106489 decided on 08.12.2021. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3