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 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sunil Kumar vs Lt. Governors Secretariat on 30 December, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                      के न्द्रीय सच
                                                  ू ना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                      बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/LTGSE/A/2022/128814-UM

Mr. Sunil Kumar
                                                                           ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                            VERSUS
                                              बनाम

CPIO
1. The PIO/Nodal Officer(RTI Cell)
   LT. Governor's Secretariat
   Raj Niwas, Delhi-110054.

2. The PIO/Nodal Officer(RTI Cell)
   Home (Police-II) Department,
   C-Wing, 5the Level, Delhi Secretariat,
   I. P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002
                                                                           प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent



Date of Hearing       :              29.12.2022
Date of Decision      :              30.12.2022

Date of RTI application                                                    30.01.2022
CPIO's response                                                            11.03.2022
Date of the First Appeal                                                   04.04.2022
First Appellate Authority's response                                       25.04.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                       16.06.2022

                                            ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following point, as under:-

The CPIO, Home (Police-II) Department, vide letter dated 11.03.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 25.04.2022 stated as:-
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr. Jai Prakash Kothari Dy Secretary LG office. Mr Rajan Bhatnagar Dy Secretary Home-II GNCTD Present in Person The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that he had sought information regarding the Action taken in the Rape and murder charges imposed on his brother. He said that no information was furnished to him by the CPIO. The Appellant further stated that in the aforesaid matter one of his brothers is accused, and he had sought information for proving his innocence. He claimed that there was all the evidence in the case that proved that the police had wrongly framed his brother. He also stated that he was the son of a former army personnel and their family has enjoyed reputation in his society but because of this false allegation the family was not able to survive in society.
The Respondent stated that the Magisterial Enquiry Report has been accepted by the Hon'ble Lt. governor, Delhi dated 24.11.2021. Further the Magisterial Enquiry Report has been sent to the concerned department i.e Commissioner of Police , Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD and the Chief Executive officer, office of the Cantonment Board for appropriate action as per the suggestions given in the report. He said that the matter is still under process and hence the information cannot be shared with the Appellant u/s 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act 2005.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission notes that the appellant is a brother of the accused and he claims that all the charges framed on him are wrong and baseless. The Commission also observes that as per Section 3 of the RTI Act, all citizens shall have the Right to Information and in the present case the appellant is seeking information for proving the innocence of his brother. The Commission cannot comment on whether the accused person's claims were correct or wrong, but the Commission is bound to provide legitimate information if the appellant seeks it for proving his innocence before Hon'ble Court, particularly in such serious case as this. In view of the mentioned facts, the Commission directs the CPIO Home Department GNCTD to furnish updated current action taken status, protecting the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 30.12.2022