Central Information Commission
Mrrameshwar Sharma Fd Po Gpo Delhi vs Delhi Police on 20 October, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001880/SB
Dated 20.10.2015
Appellant: Shri Rameshwar Sharma,
Chamber No. F308,
Tis Hazari,
Karkardooma Court Parisar,
Karkardooma Court,
Shahdara110032.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
O/o Police Commissioner,
Delhi Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.T.O.,
New Delhi110002.
Date of Hearing: 20.10.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Rameshwar Sharma filed an application dated 07.05.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Delhi Police seeking information on 18 queries including (i) total amount spent on security of P.M., C.M., President and Ministers (ii) action taken on the complaints submitted by teachers of Sonepat district to the P.M. & C.M. (iii) why no action was taken against the leaders and ministers who have amassed wealth (iv) whether the amendments carried out in Land Acquisition law by Haryana and Central Government have been implemented (vi) how many persons whose land was acquired have been allotted 1200 Sq. yards of residential plots and 1000 Sq. yards of commercial plots after development.
2. As he did not receive any reply from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.12.2013 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Aggrieved that even the FAA did not respond to his appeal, the appellant filed second appeal dated 11.06.2014 before the 1 Commission on the ground that neither the CPIO nor the FAA provided the information sought by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Rameshwar Sharma was absent despite notice. The respondent Shri Parveen Tuli, CPIO and ACP, Delhi Police was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that the information related to the department and as available was provided to the appellant vide letters dated 06.06.2013, 07.06.213, 12.06.2013, 14.06.2013, 15.06.2013, 17.06.2013, 18.06.2013, 20.06.2013, 21.06.2013 and 24.06.2013.
Decision:
5. The Commission observes that the information has been provided to the appellant.
Hence, no further action is required in the matter.
6. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 2