Md Imran Ahmad vs Delhi Police on 8 March, 2024

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Md Imran Ahmad vs Delhi Police on 8 March, 2024

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/2023/609409

Shri Md Imran Ahmad                                           ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                      ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police

Date of Hearing                        :   08.03.2024
Date of Decision                       :   08.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :         15.10.2022
PIO replied on                    :         17.11.2022
First Appeal filed on             :         20.11.2022
First Appellate Order on          :         15.12.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :         19.02.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-

"Copy of all written prohibition under section 144 Cr.PC that have been issued by Delhi Police/concerned officials between 1st January 2019 to 15 th October 2022 in all Districts of Delhi."

The PIO, Addl. Dy. CP, New Delhi District vide letter dated 15.11.2022 replied as under

Information sought by you is lengthy, time consuming and requires diversion of manpower for preparation and compiling the same, as the same is not available at a glance; hence, attracts section 7(9) of RTI Act- 2005. However, if required, you may inspect the relevant record of all ACsP/Sub-Division/NDD on any working day from 11.00 AM to 04.00 PM within a month, after obtaining the suitable date & time from the concerned ACsP/Sub-Division of New Delhi District, on payment basis for first hour free of cost & @ Rs. 5/- per subsequent hour, as per section 4(f), under RTI Rule-2012 & collect the required permissible documents after depositing the fee i.e. Rs. 2/- Per copy through cash or postal order, Banker cheque in the name of DCP/NDD as per provision of RTI Act 2005.

Page 1 of 3

You are requested to bring your identity proof at the time of inspection/obtaining the said documents.

The CPIO-cum-Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-South East Distt., New Delhi vide letter dated 17.11.2022 replied as under:-

".....the requisite information could not be provided to you as per the provision of section 8 (1)((e) of RTI Act 2005," information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2022. The FAA/Dy. CP, South East District vide order dated 15.12.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Written submission dated 22.02.2024 has been received from the PIO, Addl. Dy. CP, New Delhi District and same has been taken on record for perusal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Mr. R Jude Rohit, Advocate on behalf of Appellant Respondent: 1. Ms. Shkuntala Uniyal, RTI Cell

2. Mr. Sunil Kumar, SI, DCP Office/SED

3. Mr. Naresh Khanna, ACP The advocate of the Appellant stated that the Appellant had sought orders issued under Section 144 CrPc which has been wrongly denied by PIO, south-

east district under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act though for the similar information PIO Parliament Street has given inspection of records. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought.

The Respondent stated that the number of orders issued under Section 144 Cr Pc has been duly furnished to the Appellant by FAA in reference to various sub- divisions.

Decision:

Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that statistical information with respect to various sub- division of South-East District has been furnished to the Appellant by FAA. Commission notes that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Page 2 of 3 Appellant, in terms of provisions of the Act. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.

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 . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission