Central Information Commission
Mrs.Jyoti Arya vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 9 February, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000017/11373
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000017
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mrs. Jyoti Arya,
W/o Nitin Arya,
D-202, School Block, Nathu Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi- 110093
Respondent 1 : Mr. Pran Nath
APIO & Assitant Commissioner Police
Delhi Police,
Police Station, Parliament Street,
New Delhi
Respondent 2 : Mr. Mohan Singh Bais
Nodal officer/RTI/Police Head quarters
C&T : PHQ, M.S.O. Building, 10th floor,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
Respondent 3 : Mr. Mehar Singh
ACP (Hauz Khas)
Delhi Police
Hauz Khas, New Delhi
Respondent 4 : Mr. Ram Sharan
Assistant Sub-Inspector
RTI Cell
Haryana Police
DCP (Head Quarter Officer) RTI Cell,
Gurgaon, Haryana
RTI application filed on : 22/09/2010
PIO replied : 16/11/2010
First appeal filed on : 03/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 16/12/2010
Second Appeal received on : 29/12/2010
Information sought:
Details of the legal action taken by the SHO or the Officer incharge on the letter of Nitin Arya dated 29/09/2009 on page no. 1 and 2. Details of the date on which cheque received of the outstanding amount by them against the FRI against Nitin Arya and also specify the place where it was received. Details of the legal proceeding and action taken by the SHO or the Officer incharge. Provide the certified copy of the mutual agreement or decision reached to by both the parties infront of the Delhi Legal Services Authority regarding Nitin Arya's case number 83/ LSC/ 10. Details of the proceedings and compromises made especially the certified copy of the compromise page no. 6,7,8 and 9. Details of the legal proceedings to cancel such agreement. Details as to the date on which Principal Mrs. Usha Ram deposited the important documents of the Laxman Public School, Hauz Khas and left it under whose supervision. Details as to who owns the movable and immovable property and from where was it obtained or details of sources of income. Details of the income received along with the address for their family organization by the name of " Trinity Wisdom and Cultural Welfare Society Private Limited". Details of the instruments kept in the Lab, the books in the Library and other such details along with their sources of procurement and their price. Details of the amount deposited in various banks on the name of the organization and from what sources as well as International bank accounts if any.
Details of the action taken by the SHO on application dated 14/05/2010 on page 2 para 5. Details of the 5 students whose ages were deduced by 2 to 3 years and specify the age they were enrolled in class
9.Details of the legal action taken against the principal. Details of the enquiry conducted By the SHO in regard to page no.-5 paragraph no 9, Page no- 7-8 paragraph no.-10,11 and 12, Page no- 9 Paragraph 13, Page no-8-11 paragraph no. 13.Details of the action taken on the applications sent by Nitin Arya. Details of the movable and immovable property and bank accounts whether in India or International of MP Uday Singh and his brother N.K. Singh. Details of the Officer incharge apart from SHO. Details of the employees who have left the job and specify whether according to the six pay commission have they been returned their outstanding amount and Provident Fund. Details of criminal record if any of MP Uday Singh and his associates. Details as to why the provisions of IPC was not resorted to on the accused by Nitin Arya.
PIO's reply :
PIO states that the information sought by the appellant does not come under the purview of 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The PIO transferred the application to the Delhi Police department.
First Appeal:
No information furnished by the PIO stating that information sought does not fall under the definition of information as per Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA agreed to the reply given by the PIO and stated that the information sought by the appellant does not fall under the purview of the Delhi Legal Services Authority and the authority responsible to answer the above asked information is Delhi Police department. The appeal lacks merit and thus is dismissed.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is aggrieved with no information furnished by the PIO despite FAA'sorder and is asking additional 12 questions.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Absent;
Respondent 1 : Mr. Pran Nath, APIO & ACP (HQ), Police Station, Parliament Street, New Delhi; Respondent 2 : Mr. Mohan Singh Bais, Nodal officer/RTI/Police Head quarters; Respondent 3 : Mr. Mehar Singh, ACP (Hauz Khas);
Respondent 4: Mr. Ram Sharan, Assistant Sub-Inspector (Head Quarter Office) Haryana;
The RTI application was received in the Police Head Quarter on 27/09/2010 and transferred to DCP(HQ)Gurgaon-Haryana, Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police (Hauz Khas) and Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police (Parliament Street) on 28/09/2010. Respondent-3 states that he received the RTI application on 01/10/2010 and provided the information on 27/10/2010. The PIO has stated that no information is available in their records. Respnodent-1 states that he had informed the Appellant on 29/10/2010 that none of the queries were relevant to their office and hence no information is available with them. Respondent-4 states that he has eight pages of information sought by the Appellant and has sought additional fees for the same. The Commission points out that once the mandated period of 30 days is over from the date of receipt of the application information must be provided free of cost. Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Respondent-4 Mr. Ram Sharan to send the attested photocopy of the information to the Appellant fee of cost before 15 February 2011. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 09 February 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (Su)