Central Information Commission
Mr.Daljeet Singh vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 12 April, 2010
Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2009/0000114
Name of Appellant : Sh. Daljeet Singh
Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, South Dist.
Sh. Daljeet Singh, the Appellant, had filed an application dated 12.12.2008, before the Commissioner of Police PHQ seeking the following information: "What is the action taken, legal acts and status of letter dated 22.08.2008 vide no. 1.03.2008PMP1/1672366 refer by Hon'ble Prime Minister Government of India."
Sh. H. G. S. Dhaliwal, CPIO / Dy. Commissioner of Police, South Dist. having received the RTI application on 30.01.2009 from the CPIO/ Vigilance replied vide letter dated 25.02.2009 replied as follows: "In this regard, this is to inform you that as per report of ACP/Hauz Khas, enquiry into the matter has been conducted which reveals that the complaint in question is fabricated and motivated one. Besides, you are wanted in two cases i.e. u/s 498A and the other is of Domestic Violence Act which were got registered by your wife Smt. Sudesh Sehjwal. Needless to say that you are absconding and not joining the investigation. Nevertheless a civil suit is pending between you and your wife over the ownership of the property in question. However, there is no apprehension of breach of peace thus the complaint has been filed."
Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed a first appeal before Sh. Ajay Kashyap, the First Appellate Authority (FAA)/Jt. Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, New Delhi, who vide order dated 2.04.2009 upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved with the reply of the Respondent the Appellant has filed the present appeal before the Commission in which he submits that the concerned officers should be asked to explain why no action was taken against his tenant as per his complaint filed before the police.
2. The matter was heard on 12.04.2010.
3. The Appellant was not present.
4. Sh. Rachpal Singh, ACP/HQ and Sh. Mahabir Prasad, I/C RTI Cell/SD represented the Respondent Public Authority.
During the hearing the Respondent submits a written statement signed by Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police / South Dist. stating therein that the matter was got enquired into by the ACP, Mehrauli, which revealed that Sh. Daljeet Singh, "the complainant had also filed a complaint against his wife Smt. Sudesh Sejwal and Sh. Suboroto Chakraborti, tenant at Ground Floor of property No. 24, Adhchini Village, New Delhi claiming therein that he had rented out the ground floor of his property no. 24, Adhchini, New Delhi to Sh. Suborto Chakraorty vide lease dt. 4.04.2006 executed between him as owner and Sh. Suborto Chakraborty as lease which was witnessed by his wife Smt. Sudesh Sejwal but his wife and tenant entered into a new lease agreement on 1.01.2008 showing Smt. Sudesh Sejwal as owner of the said property and he was dispossessed. However all relevant documents filed by both the parties with Police authorities have been collected and the complainant was contacted on 3.03.2010 and he was asked about his grievances who told that he had already mentioned his grievances in his complaint and there is nothing new to add and requested for action against police officer especially against ACP Sh. Mehar Singh, SHO Sh. Harpal Singh and Inspector, Shashi of CAW Cell for not taking action against on his complaint. Further, he was asked to give any document in his favour who replied that he would join the enquiry within 2/3 days and will provide the documents. Smt. Sudesh Sejwal and Sh. Amit, Manager of Tenant Company were contacted to know the real situation but no statement was recorded as sufficient material is available on record.
On scrutiny of documents, it has been, revealed that complainant had filed his complaint in the Court of ACMM praying therein to pass direction to Police for registration of FIR but his prayer was not entertained by the Ld. Court finding no merit in the matter for getting the same investigated thorough Police but the complainant has concealed the facts that the lease deed executed by him was terminated after due process of law i.e. by giving prior legal notice to him on the basis of Sale Deed Executed by him in favour of his wife regarding the property in question in the year 1997 and this fact has been admitted by him in the court through questioning the sancity of the same for some procedural defect in registration before Sub Registrar. The matter regarding tenancy is still pending in the court of Sh. Dheeraj More, Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Moreover, it is the fact, even admitted by the complaint that he had given the possession of the property to the same tenant who lateron, cancelled his lease agreement and executed new one with his wife. Hence, there is no question of dispossession of any one and the only question remains about the legal validity of the legal instrument of tenancy for which appropriate jurisdiction lies with civil court only."
The Respondent therefore, submit that the complaint filed by Sh. Daljeet Singh, has been duly enquired into and does not have any merit, that the allegations levelled against the Police Officers could not be proved. The Matter is also subjudice and hence, there is no reason for the Police to interfere in the matter.
After due consideration and on perusal of the documents the Commission finds that requisite reply as per the RTI Act. has been provided to the Appellant by the Respondent and there is no reason for the Commission to interfere in the reply of the Respondent.
With this order, the matter is disposed of accordingly.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 12.04.2010