Central Information Commission
Dr. K. Govindan vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (North West) on 4 December, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00689 dated 8.5.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Dr. K. Govindan
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (North West)
Facts:
By application of 26.9.06 Dr. Govindan of Rasipuram, Namakkal Tamilnadu applied to the Office of the Chief Minister, GNCT Delhi seeking the following information:
"Requesting information under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 with regard to the following references.
1. CM/PG/VIP/2006/36242 dated 7.6.06 office of the Chief Minister NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi-110002.
2. No. P2-1072134/President Secretariat Public Section-2/ Rashtrapati Bhavan-New Delhi dated 16.9.2005.
May I request you the information concerning my right with access to know the action taken with regard to reference CM/PG/VIP/2006/36242 dated 7.6.2006 office of the Chief Minister NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat and reference second cited?"
This application was transferred on 3.10.06 by PIO CM's Office Shri Varun Kapoor, Dy. Secretary (G) to the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime) Delhi Police, who in turn by a letter of 5.10.06 transferred this application to the D.C.P. (NW) under intimation to Dr. Govindan. DCP (NW) in his response of 8.11.06 informed Dr. Govindan as follows:
"Details of DDs have not been provided on any photocopies which are not annexed with the reference so the same could not be verified from being credited to Ms. Meenu Arora. She has verbally also stated that she was not having any such DDs credited to her in the year 2001-02. However, 6.11.06, the IO contacted to you on telephone No. 0427-322142 (c ) at your clinic in Rashipur (Tamil Nadu) wherein you stated that you will search and collect the details of these drafts and would be sending the details to the IO (PS-Model Town) by urgent courier. As such the matter pertains to 1 money transaction and being of civil nature, hence at this stage no police action is called for."
Not satisfied, Dr. Govindan moved a first appeal giving details of DDs sent on 26.12.'01 and the information received from the Bank on 17.1.07 concluding with the following prayer:
"May I request the information concerning my right with access to know the action with regard to reference CM/PG/VIP/2006/362421 dated 7.6.2006 office of the Chief Minister NCT of Delhi- Delhi secretariat and reference P2-1072134/ President Secretariat Public section-2/ Rashtrapati Bhavan New Delhi dated 16.9.2005 for recovering the money from Meenu Arora/ Certificate?"
Upon this, Dr Govindan received the following order from Shri P. R. Meena, JCP Northern Range and FAA dated 23.2.07, as follows:
"The appeal is remitted back to PIO/ North-West Distt, with the directions to examine the contents of these documents and action taken on the basis of these documents may be intimated to the appellant within 15 days, permissible under Right to Information Act, 2005."
Dr. Govindan has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"I am praying the Central Information Commision under subsection (3) of section 19 of the RTI Act 2005 to enquire into with regard to the action taken on (I) CM/PG/VIP/2006/36242 dated 7.6.2006 after of the Chief Minister NCT of Delhi-Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi-2 and reference (II)j No. P2-P2- 107213/President Secretariat, Public section-2/ Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi dated 16.9.2005 for recovering money of Rs. 6, 03,000/- from Meenu Arora, B-198, Gujaranwala Town Part-1, New Delhi-110009."
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 4.12.2008. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio Namakkal, TN Dr. K. Govindan.
Respondents Shri N. S. Bundela, DCP/ New Delhi.
Shri Prem Nath, ACP/PE, New Delhi.2
Shri Ram Singh, Inspector.
Dr. K. Govindan, appellant, submitted that although he had received the above cited response from the PIO and FAA, these were not appropriate as these did not amount to action taken on his complaint. DCP Shri N. S. Bundela, on the other hand submitted that the matter had been remanded back to the PIO to look into his complaint regarding the disposal of funds and has informed him that the matter amounted to a case of civil nature and not a criminal offence.
DECISION NOTICE Having heard the parties and examined the record, we find that the information sought by Dr. Govindan is clearly the action taken on two complaints made by him regarding alleged misappropriation of funds sent by him and credited to one Ms. Meenu Arora. The allegations themselves cannot constitute a request for information under the RTI Act. That request was simply seeking information of action taken on the allegations. To this he has received a reply in the initial response of PIO Shri Manish Kumar Aggarwal, DCP in stating that "hence at this stage no police action is called for." This having been the case, there was no need for the 1st appellate authority Shri Meena to further prolong the matter by remitting it back to the PIO without specifying what further information was required to be provided in reference to the original application.
This case now becomes a complaint of inaction on what appellant Dr. Govindan considers a criminal case and the police have concluded is a case of civil nature. Adjudication on this is clearly outside the purview of the RTI. JCP has already taken note of this remitting the case to the DCP NW, who is PIO, although we have found such remand unwarranted under the RTI Act. This appeal is, therefore, unsustainable and is hereby dismissed.3
The only remaining issue is a question of delay in response. It is fact that the application was submitted to PIO's office on 26.9.06 but the reply received only on 8.11.06. DCP Shri N. S. Bundela has explained that by the time the application was received in his office, the date was already 10.10.06 and, therefore, the response has gone within the mandated time limit. This contention is found to be correct. There is, therefore, no ground for penalty.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 4.12.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 4.12.2008 4