Central Information Commission
Manish Kumar vs Delhi Police on 11 November, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2023/641898.
Shri MANISH KUMAR. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police.
Date of Hearing : 07.11.2024
Date of Decision : 07.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.05.2023
PIO replied on : 22.06.2023
First Appeal filed on : 07.07.2023
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 29.08.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.05.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Please provide me information that when the investigating officer (L.O.) send the MLC No. 2281/2022 of the FIR No. 434/2022 to MRD Section of LHMC Hospital/any hospital for opinion on nature of injuries.
2. Please provide me the information that how many FIRs has been lodge under section 323, 307 and 308 of IPC between 01.07.2022 to 01.05.2023 in your Police Station (PS) Pahar Ganj.
3. Please provide me the information that how many MLC report sent to MRD section/or any other medical department of LHMC Hospital/any hospital for opinion on nature of injuries between 01.07.2022 to 01.05.2023.
4. Please provide me the information that how many FIR have been lodge under section 307 and 308 of IPC in PS Pahar Ganj in which the victim was beaten by iron rod and sticks without submitted the MLC to MRD section of LHMC Hospital/any hospital 01.07.2022 to 01.05.2023.
5. Please provide me an attested copy of the MLC Report No. 2281/2022 with Opinion Report."
The CPIO, Central District, Daryaganj vide letter dated 22.06.2023 replied as under:-
"1 से 4 - आपके िारा मांगी गई जानकारी के ररपोर्ग की प्रनतनलनप संलग्न है।" Page 1 of 2
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.07.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Subhash Chandre, SI- participated in the hearing. The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. Furthermore, the investigation has been initiated on the direction of the court and related documents can be obtained from the court.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचर्कारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)