Central Information Commission
Mukesh Gupta vs Delhi Police on 7 August, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/628916
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/630281
Shri Mukesh Gupta ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/Asst. Commissioner of Police, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Cyber Crime Cell, Mandir Marg,New Delhi
Through: Sh. Aditya Gautam- ACP, Cyber Cell
PIO/M/o Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi
Through: Sh. A K Dhyani - US, MHA
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2020
Date of Decision : 07.08.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the appeals have been filed by the same appellant regarding
same subject matter, the above mentioned cases are clubbed together for
hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAA's
No. on Order
628916 04.06.2018 04.07.2018 04.07.2018 02.08.2018
12.07.2018
630281 05.06.2018 Nil 05.07.2018 Nil
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/628916
Appellant filed online RTI application dated 04.06.2018 seeking information
regarding a complaint about the Bitcoin online forgery case sent by email dated
03.05.2018 to the Commissioner of Police for action by the Cyber Cell of Delhi
Police. The appellant filed the RTI application seeking action taken report on the
said complaint, on 4 points:
1. Where my Complaint is pending currently?
2. Why I have not received any response further from Delhi Police?
Page 1 of 3
3. When the action will be taken on my Complaint?
4. What is the maximum time for disposal of my Complaint?
(Queries reproduced verbatim)
On not having received reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated
04.07.2018.
PIO/Delhi Police, Cyber Crime Cell, vide letter dated 04.07.2018 responded to
the appellant that the Complaint No. 12436 received by Email dated 03.05.2018
has been clubbed with case FIR No. 35/18 PS EOW, which is a multi-victim
case comprising similar complaints. IO of the case is Inspector Samarpal Singh
and that details of the case have already been conveyed to the appellant on
13.06.2018.
After filing First Appeal, another reply dated 12.07.2018 was received from
PIO/Asst. Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Cell in which the Respondent
while reiterating the reply dated 04.07.2018, further informed the appellant that
since he had joined the enquiry on 13.06.2018, he had been updated about the
case. FAA vide order dated 02.08.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with
the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
Appellant states that the matter is currently pending before the SC and hence there is no point in pursuing this matter. He wants to withdraw this case.
Decision:
In view of the appellant's submission, the instant case is dismissed as withdrawn.
(2) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/630281 Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 05.06.2018seeking information on the following 4 points regarding his grievance dated 05.05.2018 filed before the MHA:
1. Why 25 days have been taken by the Joint Secretary C& IC (Saheli Ghosh Roy) to forward the Grievance?
2. Why the Grievance not forwarded immediately to the next level for necessary action?Page 2 of 3
3. How much time will be taken by the Addl. Secretary (K.P. Srivastava) to forward the Grievance to the next level for necessary action?
4. What is the maximum time for disposal of the Grievance? With this speed of action the Grievance will be disposed of in more than one year.
(Queries reproduced verbatim) Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 05.07.2018 which was not adjudicated, therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
Respondent from MHA submitted during the course of hearing that the queries were interrogative in nature and hence they were not replied to assuming that the queries do not fall within the purview of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon hearing the parties present for hearing, the Commission does not find the reply of the respondent convincing. In fact the respondent's submissions reveal a lack of understanding and incorrect interpretation of the RTI Act, in not replying to the appellant. The queries of the appellant are not such that do not merit any response. Some reply should have been sent in accordance with the RTI Act. Accordingly, Shri A.K. Dhyani - US, MHA is hereby directed to submit an explanation for denial of information to the appellant, in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act. The explanation must reach the Commission by 15.09.2020, failing which action will be taken on this issue on the basis of available records.
The appeal is thus decided on the above terms.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3