Central Information Commission
Dr. Ompal Singh vs Indian Agriculture Research Institute ... on 5 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/ OP/A/2009/00280/SS dated 20.05.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Name of the Appellant : Dr. OmPal Singh
Name of the Public Authority : Indian Agriculture Research Institute
PUSA, New Delhi
BACKGROUND:
Dr. Om Pal Singh, who the appellant in this case, filed an RTI application dated 23.03.09 to the CPIO of IARI, New Delhi regarding his GSLIS claim which was due to him after retirement. The CPIO Mrs. Dayawanti Shamvedi replied that IARI had not received the GSLIS claim form from the appellant and further requested him to fill up the attached form and submit it through the AAO of his Division. The appellant in his second appeal before the Commission has stated that the information given by CPIO was totally false since he had submitted the required form on 17.10.2008 and that there was documentary evidence in support of this. The appellant has further stated that the FAA not only ignored the false information furnished by the CPIO but also sought to penalise him for asking information under the RTI Act, 2005.
2. In a further development the appellant in his letter dated 27.5.2009 addressed to the CIC Registry has prayed for withdrawal of the RTI appeal dated 15.5.2009. A letter from FAA addressed to the CIC Registry dated 30.10.2009 and received on 3.11.2009 states that Dr. O. P. Singh has been paid his full and final dues of GSLIS vide Cheque No.613875 dated 8.6.2009.
3. The matter was heard on 6.11.2009.
4. The appellant Dr. Om Pal Singh was present.
5. Shri Sanjay Kant, Chief Admn. Officer, Shri S.K. Bansal, Finance Officer represented the respondents.
Decision:
6. Since the appellant Dr. Om Pal Singh has withdrawn his complaint from CIC and also in view of the fact that Dr. O.P. Singh has been paid his full and final GSLIS claims, the RTI application is treated as withdrawn and the matter is closed.
7. The decision announced on conclusion of the hearing. Notice of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 6.11.2009 Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 6.11.2009 Copy to:
1 Mr. OmPal singh, A - 202, Bhawani Co-op. Group Housing Society GH - 91, Sector - 54, Gurgaon - 122011.
2. Shri Sanjay Kant, Chief Admn. Officer, IARI, New Delhi CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/00059/SS dated 24.10.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Mr Jagan Nath Name of the Public Authority : Deputy Commissioner of Police Traffic Unit, RK Puram BACKGROUND:
The appellant Shri Jagannath has submitted an application dated 9.5.2008 to the CPIO under the RTI Act, 2005 seeking information concerning Constable Rajesh, S/O Shri Puran Singh. The information sought was regarding information submitted by Constable Rajesh at the time of recruitment including name of the school/board of qualifying examination, date of birth, copy of application for recruitment and character certificate. The appellant has submitted that the said Constable Rajesh has forged documents in order to get recruited to Delhi Police. The CPIO denied the information to the appellant on the ground that Constable Rajesh had given a written submission regarding non-disclosure of the information in terms of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO also withheld the information under Sub-Clause (h) of Clause (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. The decision of the CPIO was upheld by the First Appellate Authority in his order passed on 25.8.2008. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed this second appeal before the CIC.
2. The matter was heard on 9.11.2009.
3. The appellant Shri Jagannath was present.
4. Shri Prabhakar, PIO, Shri Vijay Kumar, APIO, Shri Amrik Singh, , Inspector and Shri Rajesh Mahi represented the respondent.
Decision:
5. The denial of information in terms of Section 11 or Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not justified since appointments made by public authorities is a public activity. In the interest of transparency in the process of making appointments of Government employees by public authorities, the information sought by the appellant ought not to be denied. The information asked for by the appellant may be provided to him within 15 days.
6. The appeal is allowed.
7. The decision announced on conclusion of the hearing. Notice of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 9.11.2009 Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 9.11.2009 Copy to:
1. Mr. Jagan Nath, S/o Sh Ram Narayan, R/o 501/5 New Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi
- 110007.
2. Shri Prabhakar, PIO, Office of DCP Traffic, R.K. Puram, New Delhi CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/C/2008/00438/SS dated 1.05.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18(1) Name of the Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Name of the Public Authority: Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East Distt., Delhi BACKGROUND:
The complainant in his RTI application dated 24.1.2008 had sought information from the CPIO on the outcome of inquiry on his complaint dt. 7.1.2008. As no information was provided by the CPIO, he filed a first appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 29.2.2008. As there was no reply from the FAA, he filed a complaint before the Commission on 23.4.2008.
2. The matter was heard on 28.10.2009.
3. The Appellant was not present.
4. Shri Syed Shakir Hasan, APIO and Shri Devender Kumar represented the respondent.
5. Comments of the CPIO as contained in his letter No.2378/RTI-Cell North East District Dated 9.9.2009 were perused during the course of the hearing. It was submitted that the reply to the RTI application was sent to his given address on 13.1.2008 mentioning therein that his complaint dated 7.1.2008 is pending inquiry with ACP, Seelampur. During the hearing the CPIO presented proof of having sent the information to the complainant under UPC.
6. It is observed that the FAA while deciding the appeal on 14.3.2008 directed that "the appellant may request for a copy if the same is not received from the concerned office". It is felt that the FAA should have instead enclosed a copy of the reply to the complainant or directed the CPIO to send another copy of his reply to the complainant. It is noted that a copy of the reply was subsequently delivered to the complainant at his residence.
7. Further to these developments it is also informed that the inquiry of the complaint into the complaint has been completed and it was revealed that the matter pertains to property dispute between the family members, which is of civil in nature and keeping in view breach of peace in the locality, the local police took preventive action under Section 107/150 of Cr.P.C.
8. Since the information has been sent to the complainant no further action is required.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 28.10.2009 Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 28.10.2009 Copy to:
1 Mr. Ghanshyam, S/o Sh Deep Chand, R/o - H - 19, Gali No.1, Shastri Park, Delhi - 110053.
2. Shri Syed Shakir Hasan, CPIO, Office of Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East District, Delhi CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/C/2009/00317/SS dated 12.06.2009 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18 Name of the Appellant : Mr. Ranjit Roy Name of the Public Authority : Deputy Commissioner of Police, SOS/Crime, Sunlight Colony BACKGROUND:
1. The complainant in his RTI application dated 11.05.09 asked for the following information :-
i) The complete copy of complaint received against Sh. Ranjit Roy on the basis of which he was called for enquiry vide letter o.
627/R/A/ACP/SOS/Crime Branch dated 16.6.08 by Sh. Ved Prakash, Inspector on 17.6.08
ii) Whether this office has received any other complaint by any person against Sh. Ranjit Roy, and Complete Action Taken Report.
2. No satisfied with the information furnished by the CPIO, the complaint filed a complaint before the Central information Commission on 28.10.09.
3. The matter was heard on 28.10.2009.
4. The complainant Shri Ranjit Roy and Smt. Sujata Roy were present.
5. Mr. Sanjay Tyagi, PIO/Crime, Mr. Rajbir Singh, Manku, APIO/Crime, Mr. Gajinder Singh, SI, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, SOS/Crime represented the respondent.
Decision:
6. The complainant is not satisfied with the information furnished to him by the CPIO on the grounds that the copy of the complaint letter against him does not contain the signatures of the complainant and also that the respondents are protecting rich and powerful persons. The information sought by the appellant is a signed copy of the complaint addressed to DCP-Crime Branch against the complainant on the basis of which he was called for inquiry by Inspector Ved Prakash. A photocopy of the complaint petition has been made available to the complainant by the CPIO. It is in fact an unsigned complaint letter. It transpired during hearing that the appellant is not contesting non-receipt of information, what he is contesting is the fact that the police are taking action on an anonymous letter. He further alleged during the hearing that the identity of the complainant is in the knowledge of the police and that they are protecting rich and powerful persons. As per RTI Act, 2005 information on record held by the public authority is to be made available to the information seeker.
This has been done in this case by furnishing to the petitioner the copy of the unsigned complaint against the petitioner received by the public authority. The justification or legality of the action taken by the public authority is not a matter that can be decided under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This was explained to the appellant during the hearing and he accepted that the information held by the public authority has been provided to him. The case is accordingly disposed of.
7. The decision announced on conclusion of the hearing. Notice of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 28.10.2009 Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 28.10.2009 Copy to:
1 Mr. Ranjit Roy, K -2078, C.R. Park, New Delhi - 110019.
2. Shri Sanjay Tyagi, PIO/Crime, Police Post, Sunlight Colony, Ashram Chowk, New Delhi.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/C/2008/00427/SS dated 19.04.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18 Name of the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Rawat Name of the Public Authority : Deputy Commissioner of Police Malviya Nagar, New Delhi BACKGROUND:
The complainant vide his RTI application dated 25.2.2008 directly addressed to the Police Station, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and sought information about the recovery of stolen vehicle Hundai Accent Car Regn. No.DL3CQ9662, Chasis No.M16941, Engine No.AO1934 for which an FIR No.0374 was lodged on 23.4.2002. The complainant has further informed that the said vehicle is presently in the possession of Shri Vilamb Singh Ranawat, S/O Shri Rattan Singh Ranawat, resident of Kheri Khurd, Distt. Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
In his appeal filed before the Commission on 3.4.2008 the complainant had sought information about the action taken against Shri Vilamb Singh about: (i) recovery of the said stolen vehicle from him; and (2) fraudulently withdrawing an amount of Rs.65 lakhs from Vijaya Bank, New Delhi for which he was put in Tihar Jail.
2. The matter was heard on 28.10.2009.
3. The complainant was not present.
4. Shri A.S. Parmar, ACP/APIO, Shri Mahabir Prasad, ASI and Shri Jarnail Singh, Inspector represented the respondent.
5. During the course of the hearing it was informed that the reply to the complainant was provided directly by the Police Station, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, vide their letter No 56/SHO/MN dated 17-03-2008. PS, Malviya Nagar did so without notice to the CPIO/South District and neither did the complainant file his RTI application before the CPIO. However, the CPIO on receipt of the complaint filed before the Commission, obtained a report from the Malviya Nagar Police Station and forwarded a copy of the reply earlier sent by PS, Malviya Nagar to the complainant on 11.9.2009. As per the report of the PS, Malviya Nagar there was indeed an FIR regarding theft of the car but in absence of any clue, the case was sent as untraceable on 10.9.2002. Subsequently, in the year 2004, the stolen car was traced by the Maharashtra Police in an abandoned condition. The car was brought to Delhi and later released to the authorized representative of Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Ltd. on 3.4.2004. The complaint of Shri Ramesh Rawat was received in the PS, Malviya Nagar on 27.2.2008 and a reply was sent to him on 17.3.2008.
Decision:
6. The requisite information has been provided to the complainant by the PS, Malviya Nagar as well as by the CPIO. Since PS, Malviya Nagar failed to apprise the CPIO of receipt of the RTI application, the CPIO cannot be held responsible for delay in furnishing information to the complainant. Moreover, since PS Malviya Nagar had provided the information directly to the complainant within 30 days, no malafide can be attributed to him either. Under the circumstance, the matter is closed.
<
7. It is observed that the complainant has sought additional information about the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.65 lakhs from the Vijaya Bank by Shri Vilamb Singh Ranawat. The complainant cannot seek additional information at appeal stage over and above the information sought in his original RTI application.
8. The decision announced on conclusion of the hearing. Notice of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
< (Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 28.10.2009 Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 28.10.2009 Copy to:
1 Mr. Ramesh Rawat, S/o Sh. Darshan Singh Rawat, D.S. Road Shyampur Thana Dist. - Dehradun, Thana - Nandikesh, Uttrakhand.
2. Shri A.S. Parmar, ACP/APIO, Office of Deputy Commisssioner of Police, Malviya Nagar , New Delhi CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/000063/SS dated 5.09.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Mr Bani Singh Ahlawat Name of the Public Authority : Deputy Commissioner of Police Vigilance Orders Central Information Commission had received an Appeal from Sh. Bani Singh Ahlawat, against the CPIO, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, New Delhi. Notices to the appellant and the respondents had been issued for hearing, their submission with regard to the appeal on 16.11.2009 at 12.00 noon. In the meantime a letter from the appellant Sh. Bani Singh Ahlawat, dated 27.10.2009 has been received on 12.11.2009, in which he has submitted that for some alleged misconducted orders for departmental action for major penalty proceedings had been initiated against the appellant. The order for departmental action has now been dropped, therefore in view of the changed circumstances, the information for which the appeal has been filed is no more required by the appellant. The appellant has therefore, requested that this Second Appeal before the CIC under section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, may be allowed to be withdrawn. Under the circumstances the case is disposed on the grounds that the appeal has been withdrawn by the Appellant.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 16.11.2009 Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/000063/SS Authenticated true copy:
(Prem singh Sagar) US &Assistant Registrar Copy to:
Sh. Bani Singh Ahlawat R/o C-304, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi Public Information Officer DCP/Vigilance, Delhi Police Bhawan Asaf Ali Road Delhi First Appellate Authority Addl. Commissioner of Police Vigilance Delhi Police Bhawan Asaf Ali Road, Delhi CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ OP/C/2009/000149/SS dated 11.05.2009 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Sh. Gopal Bajaj Name of the Public Authority : Ground Water Borad, CHQ NH-IV Background The complainant filed an application dated 30.03.2009, in terms to the RTI Act, 2005, to the respondent Public Authority, the Central Ground Water Board. The application was received in the Office of the Public Authority through post on 8.04.2009, The CPIO vide his letter dated 1.05.2009 dispatched the reply by speed post, the receipt of which was shown during the hearing, requesting the complainant to deposit Rs. 418 for 209 pages of information on all the 8 points. However, the complainant failed to deposit the requisite amount, instead he filed a complaint before the Commission dated 11.05.2009. During the hearing it was informed the complainent also filed a similar appeal under section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 before the First Appellate Authority on 11.05.2009, which was disposed off by the FAA vide his reply, appeal dated 22.05.2009, wherein he has requested that the complainant to deposit Rs. 418 for 209 pages of information.
2. The matter was heard on 17.11.2009
3. The appellant did not appear inspite of notice having been given to him
4. Sh. S. Kumar, FAA,GWB and Sh. N. P. S. Nagi, PIO represented the Public Authority.
Decision
5. The complainent has not deposited the requisite amount for getting information from the respondent inspite of notice from the CPIO & FAA.
6. The complainant may get the information from the CPIO of the Public Authority after depositing the requisite amount.
Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 17.11.2009 Appeal No. CIC/ OP/C/2009/000149/SS Authenticated true copy:
(Prem singh Sagar) US &Assistant Registrar 17.11.2009 Copy to:
Sh. N.P.S. Nagi Public Information Officer Ground Water Board, CHQ NH-IV Faridabad Sh. Gopal Bajaj C/o United Aero Service Ground Floor 21 Indra Prakash Building Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000064/SS dated 25.09.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Mr Brij Mohan Mahajan Name of the Public Authority : Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, M/o Home Affairs Background Sh. Brij Mohan Mahajan, filed an RTI request dated 20th August, 2008, to the respondent, Public Authority. The CPIO has replied to the RTI request through his letter dated 17th Sept. 2008 through which information was provided. However the complainant preferred to file a first appeal dated 1.09.2008 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), requesting information on whether inspection/verification was done on certain specific points. The FAA in his reply dated 19th Sept. 2008 replied to the appellant giving information on the specific Points.
Dissatisfied with the replies appellant preferred to file 2nd Appeal before the Commission
2. The matter was heard on 16.11.2009.
3. The appellant did not appear inspite of notice having been given to him.
4. The Respondent Sh. Vinod Kumar, Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents
-cum-CPIO represented the Public Authority.
Decision I find that full information has been provided to the appellant.
The matter is accordingly disposed off.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 16.11.2009 File No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/000064/SS Authenticated true copy:
(Prem singh Sagar) US &Assistant Registrar 16.11.2009 Copy to:
Sh. Brij Mohan Mahajan, 2A, Avenue Casia, Westend Greens, Rajokri, New Delhi Sh. Inder Kumar Arora Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents Directorate of Forensic Science M/o Home Affairs, Govt. of India 30, Gorachand Road, Kolkata - 700014 First Appellate Authority Directorate of Forensic Science M/o Home Affairs, Govt. of India 30, Gorachand Road, Kolkata-700014 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/000017/SS dated 18.11.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Sh. Bhagwan Singh Talwar Name of the Public Authority : M/o Home Affairs (Settlement Wing) Background The request for information-dated 2.06.2008, under the RTI Act, 2005, was filed before the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs (Settlement Wing) Govt. of India. The request for information was to provide vide RTI application dated 2.06.2008, the Appellant sought a copy of the list of migrants from the Village Niaz Beg Thokar in erstwhile Tehsil & District Lahore in West Punjab (now in Pakistan) consisting of Hindus and Sikhs with details of their immoveable properties (agricultural land), from the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs. The applicant stated that he required the list which was sent by the Govt. of Islamic Republic of Pakistan after partition of West Punjab and that if the list was not traceable/available in the records of the respondent, the same may be obtained from the District Coordination Officer (DCD), Lahore, Pakistan through diplomatic channels and given to the applicant.
2. This application for information was replied to by the CPIO in his letter dated 30.06.2008, "Please refer to your application dated 2.06.2008 on the subject cited above and to inform you that there is no list available to migrants from Village Niaz Beg Thokar, Tehsil & Distt. Lahore in West Punjab (now in Pakistan) consisting of Hindus and Sikhs with their details of immoveable properties left by them during partition, as the requisite information is almost fifty years old.
(ii) So far as obtaining of the said information from the Govt. Of Pakistan is concerned, it is beyond the scope of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) If you are not satisfied by the reply you may approach the Appellate Authority who is Jt. Secretary (FFR). His address is given below:"
The CPIO further gave the name and address to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to whom an appeal could be made.
3. The appellant not being satisfied with the information furnished by the CPIO filed the appeal dated 6.10.2008 before the FAA. Failing to get the required information the appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard on 11.11.2009.
5. Sh. Bhagwan Singh Talwar, the Appellant was present
6. Sh. Ashok Kumar, Dy. Secretary of M/o Home Affairs, the respondent CPIO was present.
7. The CPIO furnished a written statement dated. 5th Nov. 2009 during the hearing a copy of which has been endorsed to, and confirmed of having been received by the appellant, during the hearing. The information furnished is as follows:
(i) With the efflux of time, the requisite records needed by Sh. Talwar, which is nearly 50 years old is not traceable, though every effort was made/
(ii) The Central Govt. had transferred the management and disposal of evacuee properties to the State Governments long back. Records were also transferred to them
(iii) Moreover, the Five Central Acts enacted between 1950-54 for rehabilitation of displaced persons from West Pakistan have since been repealed in 2005.
With the repeal of these Acts, the Settlement Wing has practically ceased to function. The entire staff except 3 persons has retired/transferred out. It is regretted that in the absence of records, it is not possible to provide the requisite information/documents.
Decision
6. Inspite of efforts of the Public Authority, the desired information could not be traced out. Seeking of information such as by way of obtaining it from the Govt. of Pakistan through diplomatic channels, as requested for by the appellant in his RTI request, is not within the purview of the RTI Act. 2005.
The matter is disposed off accordingly.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 16.11.2009 Authenticated true copy:
(Prem singh Sagar) US &Assistant Registrar Copy to:
1. Sh. Ashok Kumar, Dy. Secretary & CPI, Govt. of India, M/o Home Affairs (Settlement Wing), Jaisalmer House, New Delhi.
2. Sh. I. B. Karn, Jt. Secretary, M/o Home Affairs, Room No. 9, 1st Floor, Lok Nayak, Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Bhagwan Singh Talwar, National Executive Secretary (Hqrs.) All India Freedom Fighters Samiti, A-2/24 Krishan Nagar, East Delhi-110051.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/000037/SS dated 21.08.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Sh. U. S. Chaudhary Name of the Public Authority : PIO-cum- Dy. Commissioner of Police, South-West District, New Delhi.
Background The appellant Sh. U. S. Chaudhary, filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2007, before the CPIO, Delhi Police Headquarters, seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005, about the verification of name and address of certain persons and about the office / branch office address of "Society for Spreading Legal Awareness Amongst Masses". The appellant wanted to know whether this alleged society has ever run and whether it is running at present or not.
The CPIO, Delhi Police Headquarters transferred the RTI request to the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police (PIO), South-West District through communication dated 7.12.2007. The Dy. Commissioner of Police (PIO), South- West District disposed of the application vide communication dated 25.01.2008, observing that "the matter does not relate to Delhi Police, hence the same may be treated at nil". Dissatisfied with this reply the appellant filed the First Appeal dated 25.01.2008 before the Jt. Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, New Delhi, which has also been disallowed for reasons that the information does not come in the definition of information in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The appellant filed an appeal against this order before this Commission.
2. The matter was heard on 19.11.2009
3. The appellant did not appear inspite of notice having been given to him.
4. Sh. Zile Singh, ACP and Sh. Satya Parkesh, Sub-Inspector represented the respondent.
Decision
5. Since the desired information is not held by or under the control of the concerned public authority, the information cannot be provided.
Accordingly the matter is disposed of.
Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 19.11.2009 Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/000037/SS Authenticated true copy:
(Prem singh Sagar) US &Assistant Registrar 19.11.2009 Copy to:
1. Dy. Commissioner of Police & CPIO South-West District New Delhi
2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jt. Commissioner of Police Southern Range Police Headquarters New Delhi
3. Sh. U. S. Chaudhary F-11 & 12, 2nd Floor, Vats Complex, U-158 Shakarpur, Main Vikar Marg Delhi CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/000021/SS dated 5.04.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Sh. Anil Kumar Jha Name of the Public Authority : PIO-cum-Dy. Commissioner of Police South-East District, New Delhi Background Through an RTI request dated 12.10.2007 the appellant Sh. Anil Kumar Jha, sought information from the PIO, DCP South-East District about the status of case FIR No. 661 PS New Friends Colony. Thereafter, as per the appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant also made a specific request to the CPIO for the post-mortem report as well as the blood analysis report of the samples taken. He received a letter dated 13.5.2008 from the CPIO informing that as per the report of the ACP Sarita Vihar the case is pending investigation for want of the viscera report and therefore the documents could not be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Aggrieved with the order he filed an appeal before First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 13.06.2008 who, vide his order dated 2.07.2008, upheld the decision of the CPIO and dismissed the appeal on the grounds that document information sought by the appellant are related to a registered FIR which is still pending investigation and disclosure of information at this stage could impede the process of investigation and hence attracts exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant has come in appeal before the CIC against the order of the FAA.
2. The matter was heard on 12.11.2009.
3. The appellant Sh. Anil Kumar Jha was present.
4. Sh. R. S. Chauhan, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South-East District and Sh. Om Prakash Pawar, Sub-Inspector represent the respondent.
Decision
5. During the hearing the respondent stated that the viscera report has yet to be received from the FSL. Order of the First Appellate Authority is upheld since investigation in the matter is still pending.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 12.11.2009 Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/000021/SS Authenticated true copy:
(Prem singh Sagar) US &Assistant Registrar 12.11.2009 Copy t o:
1. Sh. Anil Shukla, Dy. Commissioner of Police & PIO South District New Delhi
2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar AA & Jt. Commissioner of Police Southern Range, PHQ MSO Building 5th Floor, I.P. Estate New Delhi
3. Sh. Anil Kumar Jha R/o A-4, Gali No. 13, Mandawali Unche Per Delhi Near Nalanda Public School CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/00066/SS dated 17.10.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Prasad.
Name of the Public Authority : PIO & DCP (Vigilance) O/o the Dy. Commissioner of Police Vigilance, Delhi.
BACKGROUND:
The appellant Shri Rajendra Prasad filed an application under the RTI Act on 15.7.2008 seeking information regarding a complaint filed by his sister Smt. Pushpa on 5.01.2001, against SI, Jai Singh, PS, Janak Puri who had conducted the investigation in FIR No.7/2001 filed under various Sections of I.P.C. against Pushpa and her brothers. The request was as follows:
"Kindly supply the attested copy of Inquiry report of Vigilance Team. Police Headquarters, New Delhi as well as Statement of the complaint & her Brothers and the opposite party (All concerned) & S.I. Jai Singh, PS, Janakpuri, New Delhi".
The CPIO vide his letter dated 21.8.2008 replied to the appellant that the enquiry into the complaint by Ms. Pushpa had been conducted and during the enquiry it was found that case No.7/2001 had not been investigated properly. Based on the vigilance report the case was transferred to the Crime Branch for further investigation and SI Sh. Jai Singh I.O. was kept in the doubtful category list. The CPIO further stated in his reply that copies of the enquiry report/statement cannot be provided as per provisions under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as it contained references to people who gave information or made depositions in good faith and that the identification of such people who co-operate with the law enforcement Authorities need to be protected. Not satisfied with PIO reply the appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). FAA also upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved with the FAA order the appellant filed second appeal before the CIC on 17.10.08.
2. The matter was heard on 16.11.2009
3. The appellant Sh. Rajender Prasad was present for hearing
4. Sh. Parvinder Singh, ACP/Vigilance represented the respondent. Decision:
5. It was informed during the hearing that the investigation into FIR no.7/2001 has been completed and charge sheet has already been filed in the Court. The respondent is directed to provide a gist of the enquiry report and the statements of the complainant and her brothers to the appellant. However, the names of other witnesses may not be disclosed.
6. The matter is disposed off accordingly
7. The decision announced on conclusion of the hearing.
8. Notice of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 16.11.2009 Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 16.11.2009 Copy to:
1 Mr. Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Late Sh. Lok Ram Sharma, R/o - RZ - 11, Kakrola Road, Roshan Garden, Najafgarh.New Delhi - 110043.
2. Public Information Officer, DCP/Vigilance, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-06
3. Sh. R. P. Upadhyaya (IPS), Addl.Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, Delhi Police Bhawan, 4th Floor, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi - 06 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/C/2008/00347/SS dated 5.03.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Sh. Nunu Jha Name of the Public Authority : M/o Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division Background Vide RTI application on 15.10.2009 the complainant sought certain information from the respondent, Public Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division. Failing to get any reply, Shr. Nunu Jha filed a complaint before the Commissioner. Notice was issued to the parties.
2. The matter was heard on 18.11.2009.
3. The complainant did not appear.
4. Sh. Paul Ekka, Deputy Secretary and Sh. H.C. Bhanot, Under Secretary represented the respondent.
5. During the hearing the respondent submitted that the RTI application was not received by them. However, on receipt of notice from this Commission, the relevant documents running into 48 pages have been furnished to the complainant through their letter dated 4.11.2009.
Decision
6. The information has been furnished to the complainant. The matter is disposed of.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 18.11.2009 Authenticated true copy:
(Prem singh Sagar) US &Assistant Registrar 18.11.2009 Copy t o:
1. Sh. Nunu Jha, Village Sugona, Rajnagar, District-Madubani, Bihar.
2. Under Secretary-cum-CPIO, M/o Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, 1st Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2009/000025/SS dated 5.09.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Mr Daya Nanad Name of the Public Authority : Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch BACKGROUND:
The Appellant Sh. Daya Nand has requested for information as follows from the respondent through an application filed under the RTI Act, 2005 dated 11.02.2008 :
(i) Whether it is a fact that even after issuance of S.O. No. 317 vide PHQ's No. 21555-21640/Estt. (IV)/PHQ dated 9/12/05, some officers/men of Delhi Police have visited foreign countries without prior permission of the competent authority.
(ii) If so, the name, rank, No. and place of posting of such persons may be given.
(iii) Whether it is a fact that the cases of some officer/men who had visited foreign countries without prior permission of PHQ as per SO No. 317 were considered and they were let off without any major punishment.
(iv) The detail of punishment awarded in each case may be given.
2. The CPIO Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch replied to the appellant vide letter dated 11.03.2008, as follows.
(i) Two Police Officers of Special Cell were permitted to go abroad while sanctioning their leave by the competent authority. The permission was granted in terms of earlier instructions on the subject, not intentionally but inadvertently. In this regard preliminary enquiry was ordered against officer concerned who did not process the applications of above two police officers, regarding their leave and their permission to go abroad and gave wrong inputs to Senior Officers. On enquiry it has been found that he did not process the application properly but it was not a deliberate act. The whole thing took place out of ignorance of the new S.O. on the part of dealing assistant. He was reprimanded by the disciplinary authority in this regard and a warning was issued to him to be more careful in future.
(ii) The information is denied under rule 8(j) RTI Act-2005.
(iii)Not applicable in view of above.
(iv) Not applicable in view of above.
Aggrieved that he had not got the complete information, the Appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority by this application dated 3.04.2008. The First Appellate Authority by letter dated 16.07.2008, informed the Appellant that the appeal dated 10.04.2009 had not been received in his office, where upon the Appellant again wrote to the First Appellate Authority dated 6.08.2008, enclosing the copy of First Appeal dated 10/04/2008, requesting consideration of his appeal. The appeal was rejected by the First Appellate Authority, though his reply dated 13.08.2008. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal before the CIC on the ground that he has not been provided with the requested information on flimsy grounds and that Section 8(j) is not attracted in this case.
3. The matter was heard on 12.11.2009.
4. The appellant was not present.
5. Shri Alok Kumar, DCP/SB (CPIO) & Sh. Ujjwal Mishra, Jt. C. P. (FAA) were present.
It was admitted during the hearing that sanction of the leave with permission to go abroad was accorded by the Jt. Commissioner of Police whereas the competent authority to do so was the Special Commissioner, PHQ.
It was submitted during the hearing that this was done inadvertently and that there was no malafide involved. The persons who processed the applications have been reprimanded by the Disciplinary Authority in this regard and a warning has been issued to be more careful in future.
Decision The two police officers took permission before proceeding abroad on leave. They cannot be held responsible if sanction was given by a person other than the competent authority. The CPIO has, therefore, rightly denied information as to the name, rank No. present place of posting of the two police officer citing section 8(1) (j)_ of the RTI Act. Such disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
The matter is decided accordingly.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 12.11.2009 Authenticated true copy:
(Prem singh Sagar) US &Assistant Registrar Copy to:
Sh. Alok Kumar Dy. Commissioner of Police (SB) Delhi Sh. Ujjwal Mishra Jt. Commissioner of Police Asaf Ali Road New Delhi Sh. Daya Nand R/o B-18, Vikas Nagar, Phase-II, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ OP/A/2008/00064/SS dated 29.05.2009 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Dr. B Madhusoodana Kurup Name of the Public Authority : Agriculture Scientist's Recruitment Board, Pusa, New Delhi BACKGROUND:
The Appellant vide his RTI application dated 17.7.2008 sought information regarding the selection to the post of Director, CMFRI, Cochin from CPIO, ASRB, New Delhi. The CPIO, vide his letter dated 14.8.2008, denied the information Under Section 8(1))e), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(i) of the RTIO Act, 2005. The First Appellate Authority also upheld the decision of the CPIO. Hence, the present appeal.
2. The matter was heard on 17.11.2009.
3. Shri P.K. Jayakishan, Advocate represented the appellant.
4. Shri N.S. Randhawa, Secretary, ASRB-cum-FAA, Ms. Namrta Sharma, US/ASRB, Shri Suresh Pal, CPIO and Shri Naresh Kr. Sharma, SO represented the respondent.
5. During the course of the hearing the respondent submitted that they are ready to furnish all the information except details of Experts/Advisors of the Steering Committee and the Selection Committee in terms of Section 8(1)(g)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent further submitted that by disclosing details of Experts/Advisors, they may face difficulties in getting their services in future, for conducting interviews to various posts, and the life of the experts/advisors may also be endangered.
Decision:
6. The respondents are directed to provide all the information which they have agreed to provide to the appellant within one week of receipt of this order. However, the information regarding the details of experts/advisors may not be disclosed.
7. The decision announced on conclusion of the hearing. Notice of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 17.11.2009 Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 17.11.2009 Copy to:
1 Dr.B. Madhusoodan Kurup, Jayem House, Nettoor P.O., Cochin - 682304.
2. Shri N.S. Randhawa, Secretary, ASRB, Krishi Annusandhan, Pusa Road, New Delhi CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ OP/A/2008/00052/SS dated 27.05.2009 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant :Mr.BalasahebTanajirao Gambhir Name of the Public Authority : M/o Woman and Child Development BACKGROUND:
Shri BalasahebTanajirao Gambhir filed an application under the provisions of the RTI Act on 2.2.09 asking for the following information:-
1.
i) Name of each Non-Government Organization recommended for financial assistance by the State Government of each State.
ii) Detail Address of place where the scheme is implemented.
iii) Name and address of Managing Committee Member's of each Non-Government organisation recommended for financial assistance by the state Government of each state.
iv) information is in the form of paper (Hard copy) of all documents with all copies are certified as a true copy by authorized signatory and language medium for information to be provided by MWCD will be English language only.
2. The CPIO in his reply dt. 13.3.09 stated as fo0llows: 'All proposals are received through the State Government. The information is not compiled by us in the form in which it is sought. The Applicant may like to take up the matter with the State Government concerned.
The information relating to NGOs receiving financial assistance under the scheme along with the address of the Organisation and geographical area to be covered under the project is available on the website of this Ministry at www.wcd.inc.in. All the information has been sent in hard copy.
Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO the Appellant filed his first appeal on 12.3.09 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), who upheld the decision of CPIO. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed an appeal before the CIC on 9.4.2009
3. The matter was heard on 16.11.2009.
4. The appellant was not present.
5. Smt. Vinita Aggarwal, Director/CPIO and Smt. Surinder Kaur, Under Secretary represented the respondent.
6. During the hearing the respondent stated that the recommendations for financial assistance under the Ujjawala Scheme are received from all the State Governments. It is voluminous work and is not maintained in the Ministry in the form in which it has been sought for. Sometimes the proposals received are returned to State Governments in original. The compilation of information sought for will divert resources and time. As regards details of place of implementation of the scheme, name and addresses of NGOs, are available on the website of the Ministry from where it can be downloaded.
Decision:
7. The plea of the respondent that the information sought regarding recommendations received from the State Governments require time and diversion of resources of the public authority was accepted. However, the public authority will make available these files for inspection to the appellant and provide him copies of the required pages. This inspection may be allowed within one month of this decision. The rest of the information may be provided in hard copies.
7. The decision announced on conclusion of the hearing. Notice of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 16.11.2009 Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 16.11.2009 Copy to:
1 Mr. Balasaheb Tanajirao Gambhir, Opp. I.T.I College, Ausa Road Latur - 413531 (Maharashtra).
2. Smt. Vinita Aggarwal, Director/CPIO CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ WB/C/2008/00456/SS dated 10.05.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18 Name of the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh joshi Name of the Public Authority : Deputy Director, Directorate of Coordination Police Wireless BACKGROUND:
The complainant Shri Ramesh Joshi filed an RTI application on 18.1.2008 before the CPIO, Directorate of Coordination- Police Wireless. MHA requesting for the following information:-
1. Is it true that Shri Ghanshyam, Staff Officer to Director DCPW is holding two departmental quarters with telephone facilities, one at New Delhi and other at Lucknow from May 2006?
2. If yes, by what rule he has been permitted and how much have been recovered from the individual so far for the purpose?
3. If there is no recovery, the reasons with rule positions?
Failing to get reply he filed an appeal before the FAA - DC-W vide his appeal dated 4.3.2008. Not having received a reply from the FAA either, he filed a complaint before the CIC under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 requesting that the information asked for may be given to him.
2. The matter was heard on 10.11.2009.
3. The complainant was not present, inspite of notice.
4. Shri T.B.J.S. Rajappa, DD and Shri M.S.N. Swamy represented the respondent.
5. A written statement was submitted at the time of hearing. It is claimed that the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority did not receive any RTI application dated 18.1.2008 or the subsequent appeal dated 4.3.2008 respectively. It is stated that the office records for the period have been checked thoroughly and no applications were found to have been received. This fact having been verified on receipt of notice dated 25.8.2009 from the Commission. The respondent have now furnished their comments alongwith the required information to the Commission vide their letter dated 31.8.2009, a copy of which has been endorsed by the respondent to the complainant by Speed Post Decision:
6. It is found that parawise information has now been furnished with a copy endorsed to the complainant. The matter is disposed of accordingly.
7. The decision announced on conclusion of the hearing. Notice of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 10.11.2009 Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 10.11.2009 Copy to:
1. Shri Ramesh Joshji, 2659, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006
2. Shri T.B.J.S. Rajappa, Deputy Director, Directorate of Coordination Police Wireless, MHA, West Block-9, CGO-Complex, New Delhi-110003 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Complaint No. CIC/ WB/C/2008/00446/SS dated 09.04.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18 Name of the Complainant : Mr. Subhash Prasad Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of Home Affairs BACKGROUND:
A complaint has been received from Shri Subhash Prasad regarding non- furnishing of information to him by the respondent to his RTI request dated 3.10.2007.
2. The matter was heard on 18.11.2009.
3. The complainant was not present.
4. Shri Ashim Khurana, Joint Secretary, Shri S.K. Shahi, Deputy Secretary and Shri Sunil K. Gupta, SO represented the respondent.
Decision:
5. During the hearing the respondent submitted that they have not received the RTI application. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for disposal of the matter within 30 days.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 18.11.2009 Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 18.11.2009 Copy to:
1 Mr. Subhash Prasad S - 25/250, Bhojubeer, Sarsauli Post - Cantt., Varanasi.
2. Shri AS.K. Shahi, Deputy Secretary/CPIO, FCR Division, Ministry of Home Affaris, New Delhi CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/ OP/A/2009/000119/SS dated 1.6.2009 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 Name of the Appellant : Mr. Brahm Prakash Name of the Public Authority : Hotel corporation of India Ltd.
(IGI Airport) New Delhi BACKGROUND:
The Appellant Shri Brahm Prakash in his RTI application dated 27.03.09 asked for "complete file of documents related to suspension case 2001 of Mr. Rajpal Yadav from his suspension period 20.08.2001 to reinstatement in service in the year 2003". The PIO replied that the information sought is the same information that was requested in his previous RTI application dated 11.7.2008 and the matter has been disposed of by the Central Information Commission vide its order No.CIC/PB/A/2008/1320/AD dated 2.1.2009. The First Appellate Authority has also taken the same view.
2. The matter was heard on on 5.11.2009.
3. The appellant Shri Brahm Prakash was present.
5. Shri S.K. Bakshi, VP Admn. And Shri Ashok Vashisth, APIO represented the Respondent.
Decision:
6. Keeping in view the earlier decision of the Central Information Commission wherein the matter has been disposed of by the Bench of Smt. Annapurna Dixit in its Order No. CIC/PB/A/2008/1320/AD dated 2.1.2009, the matter is disposed of.
7. Notice of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 5.11.2009 Appeal No. CIC/ OP/A/2009/000119/SS Authenticated true copy.
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under secretary & A.R. 5.11.2009 Copy to:
1 Mr. Brahm Prakash, R/o - 673, Pocket B, DDA Flats,Hastsaal, Near Vikaspuri, New Delhi - 110059.
2. Shri S.K. Bakshi, VP Admn./CPIO