Central Information Commission
Mrsanita Guleria vs Delhi Police on 25 April, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110 066
TEL: 01126105682
Decision Nos. CIC/VS/A/2014/003568/SB
CIC/VS/A/2014/003529/SB
Dated 25.04.2016
Appellant : Mrs. Anita Guleria,
A75, Syam Vihar, PHIInd, Gali
No.17,Near Mata Mandir, Najafgarh, New
Delhi110 043.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
Delhi Police, O/o the ADCP cum PIO,
South West District, Sector 19, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 25.04.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.07.2014
CPIO's reply : 14.08.2014
First Appeal : 06.09.2014
FAA's order : 01.09.2014/15.10.2014
Second appeal filed on : 11.11.2014
ORDER
1
1. Mrs. Anita Guleria filed two identical applications dated 18.07.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Dy. Police Commissioner, SouthWest District, Delhi Police seeking detailed information of the action taken by the police department on twentytwo complaints filed by her, relating to indecent behavior, trespassing, obscene gesture and threats to her life.
2. The appellant filed the second appeal dated 11.11.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the respondent organization has provided misleading and incorrect information. Hearing:
3. The appellant Ms. Anita Guleria and the respondent Shri Anand Prakash, APIO, Delhi Police were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that complete information has not been provided in response to her RTI application either by the CPIO or the FAA. The appellant further submitted that despite the FAA's order dated 15.10.2014 wherein the CPIO was directed to provide point wise, specific information, no information has been provided yet by the CPIO concerned.
5. The respondent submitted that in compliance of the order of FAA dated 15.10.2014, a response was sent to the appellant vide letter dated 05.11.2014 wherein a detailed report on the action taken on the PCR calls and complaints made by the appellant has been provided to her. The respondent further submitted that the complaints which were pending investigation have since been disposed of and two FIRs namely 31/2014, U/s 341/354/506/509/34 IPC and FIR No. 289/2014, U/S 354/509 IPC have been registered.
Decision:
2
6. The Commission observes that in compliance with the order of the FAA, requisite information has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 05.11.2014. Nonetheless, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the response provided on 05.11.2014 again to the appellant. If the appellant is not satisfied with the response provided, she can file a complaint before the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 3