Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Om Kawar Singh vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 15 March, 2011

                             Central Information Commission
                               2nd Floor, Room No. 305 B-Wing,
                                     August Kranti Bhawan
                                      Bhikaji Kama Place
                                           New Delhi
                                                                    Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000640

        Name of Appellant                        :       Sh. Om Kanwar Singh 
                                                               (The Appellant was not present)



        Name of Respondent                       :       Delhi Police, Crime Branch, Delhi
                                                         (Represented by Sh. Sanjay Bhatia, 
                                                         Addl.DCP, S.I. Satish Kumar, ACP, Zile 
                                                         Singh and S.I. Satya Parkash)


        The matter was heard on                  :       7.03.2011


                                                     ORDER
 

In the present case the Commission issued a Show Cause Notice dated 4.02.2011  to the PIO, Crime Branch, Delhi Police to show cause why the penalty @ 250 per day  should   not   be   imposed   on   him   for   not   providing   the   information   within   the   period  stipulated under the RTI Act. In response to show cause notice of the Commission the  Respondent in his written reply pleads as follows:­ "With reference to the show cause notice under Section 20(1) of RTI Act, 2005, issued to   the undersigned  in case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000640  dated 4.02.2011,  I am to humbly   submit that Sh. Om Kanwar singh, hereinafter called appellant had filed an application   dated   2.03.2010   under   RTI   Act,   2005   with   the   then   PIO/Crime   seeking   therein   information on 12 different points, which broadly pertains to the investigation of case   FIR No. 678 u/s 366 IPC PS/Dabri, New Delhi.  Investigation of the referred case is still   pending   in   Anti   Kidnapping   section   of   Crime   Branch,   Delhi.   Appellant's   referred   application was received on 8.03.2010 and as the then PIO/Crime was not the custodial   of the information  sought, ACP/Anti Kidnapping Section of Crime Branch was served   with a copy of appellant's application to furnish a report. ACP/Anti Kidnapping Section   vide   his   report   of   dated   22.03.2010   recommended   to   send   appellant's   referred   application  to PIO/South­West Dist, as the information  sought was prima facie found   closely related to his office. Agreeing with the recommendations of ACP/Anti Kidnapping   Section, the then PIO/Crime informed the appellant vide letter No. 761/PIO/Crime, dated   5.04.2010 for providing the information sought directly to the Appellant under RTI Act,   2005.

But,   being   dis­satisfied   with   the   above   decision   of   the   then   PIO/Crime,   the   appellant filed an appeal on 13.04.2010 under RTI Act, 2005 with the then Ist Appellant   Authority,   Crime,   Delhi.   His   appeal   was   received   on   16.04.2010   and   the   then   Ist   Appellate authority, Crime accepted appellant's appeal and (1) briefed accordingly the   then   PIO/Crime   for   not   transferring   appellant's   original   application   within   the   stipulated period as per section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 & (ii) sent a copy of his orders to   the  Ist Appellate  authority,  South­West  District  vide  his  office  order  F.No.  42/10/85­ 87/RTI/Appeal/Crime, dated 26.04.2010. 

In the meantime, APIO/south­West Dist returned appellant's original application   of  dated  2.03.201   to   the   then  PIO/Crime  vide   memo   No.   2839  dated   19.04.2010  for   taking further necessary action into the matter, as no record pertaining to the referred   case is available at PS/Dabri at present.   This memo was received in the office of the   them PIO/Crime on 20.04.2010 and accordingly this time also, a report was obtained   from   anti   Kidnapping   Section   of   Crime   Branch.     This   time,   ACP/AKS   arranged   to   provide a report bearing No. 535/ACP/AKS, dated 28.04.2010 on Point Nos. 1 & 3 to 12   and for Point No. 2, it was required to be provided by SHO/PS/Dabri.  Agreeing with the   recommendations   of   ACP/AKS,   information     sought   on   Point   Nos.   1   &   3to   12   was   provided   to   the   appellant   vide   letter   No.   1023/PIO/Crime,   dated   28.04.2010   and   for   Point No. 2, PIO/South­West Dist was requested vide endst.  No. 1024/PIO/Crime, dated   28.04.2010 to provide the same directly to the appellant under RTI Act, 2005.

Is is also being brought to your kind notice that PIO/SW Dist has also provided   the information  sought on Point No. 2 directly  to the appellant under  RTI Act, 2005   under   intimation   to   the   then   PIO/Crime   videNo.   3719   dated   19.05.2010.     It   is   also   pertinent   to   mention   here   that   on   appellant's   application   of   dated   13.10.2009,   investigation  of case FIR No. 678/08  PS/Dabri,  New Delhi  was transferred  to Crime   Branch vide PHQ's order No. 30734­42/C&T/AC­III/PHQ, dated 16.10.2009.

In view of position explained above, ti seems that there was some confusion and   communication gap in the offices of Anti Kidnapping Section of Crime Branch, South­ West Dist and the then PIO/Crime, due to which there was a little delay in forwarding   appellant's  original  application  filed  under  RTI  Act,  2005  to  other  concerned  public   authority. There was no intentional delay on the part of the then PIO/Crime has been   found.  However, I can assure you that utmost care will be taken while dealing with the   cases received under RTI Act, 2005.

After   hearing   the   Respondent   and   on   perusal   of   the   aforementioned   written  submission of the Respondent, the Commission is of the considered view that the PIO  acted diligently; without any malafide and there were reasonable causes for the delay in  furnishing complete requisite information within the period stipulated under the RTI Act.  Therefore, the Commission deems it fit to drop the penalty proceedings against the PIO.  

(Sushma Singh)                                                                            Information Commissioner  15.03.2011 Authenticated true copy (S. Padmanabha) Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar  Copy to:

1. Sh. Om Kanwar Singh RZ-62 B Gopal Mandir Road, Dabri Extension East New Deli-110045
2. The Public Information Officer Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police South-West Dist Sector-19, Dwarka New Delhi
3. The Public Information Officer Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police South-West Dist 2nd Floor, P.S. Kamla Market Officer Complex New Delhi
4. The Appellate Authority Dy. Commissioner of Police Crime Branch, 10th Floor, PHQ I.P. Estate New Delhi