Central Information Commission
Mr. Surinder Puri vs Mcd on 25 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000163/7237
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000163
Complainant : Mr. Surinder Puri
18/374, Gali No. 4, Bagh Kare Khan
Kishan Ganj, Delhi 110007
Respondent : Superintending Engineer & PIO
MCD, Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone
Idgah Road, Delhi 110006
Background:
The Commission passed an order on 29/12/2009 vide Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002861/6110 in which both parties were directed to conduct joint- inspection of Property no. 224, Gali No.7, Padam Nagar, Kishan Ganj, Delhi 11007. The joint inspection was to be conducted in the presence of the Appellant (Mr. Surinder Puri) and the following departments of the MCD - House Tax, Building Department and Engineering Department on 12/01/2010 at 10.30 am.
The Commission received a letter dated 28/01/2010 from the Appellant Mr. Surinder Puri wherein he alleged physical assault and brutal manhandling of two office bearers of the Public Grievance and Welfare Society, namely Mr. Ajay Kumar (General Secretary) and Mr. Manmohan Gupta (Treasurer), who were among the other members who accompanied the Appellant for the joint inspection. In the letter it has been stated that the inspection was initiated in the presence of the following MCD officials - AE Mr. Arya, JE Mr. V.S.Rai, AE (Bldg.) Mr.Singh, two officials of MCD House Tax Department and the Land and Estate Department. According to the letter, there were seven police constables of Sarai Rohilla Police Station who were also present during the inspection on site. The AE Mr. Arya is said to have only allowed two of the society members to inspect the property site. Therefore, both Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Manmohan Gupta went in for the inspection on the Appellant's behalf. It has been alleged that while the inspection was on, Municipal Councillor Mr. Satbir Singh along with his accomplices (reportedly son and nephew) came with a mob of 30 people and inflicted brutal physical assault with an iron rod on Mr. Ajay Kumar which has said to have caused him a fracture of the nose bone and that Mr. Manmohan Gupta was slapped and bullied. Furthermore, it has been alleged that when an attempt was made to file a FIR against the said attack, the case was only registered after the society lodged a complaint with the CMM (North). The complaint also mentioned that Mr. Ajay Kumar was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital at about 3.00pm on 12 January by the police where it is recorded that he was bleeding from the nose. He has also stated that later on he was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.
Page 1 of 11The Commission registered a Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000163 in accordance with Section 18(1)(f) of the RTI Act.
Section 18 of the RTI Act states:
18. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,-
(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer, or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in sub section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;
(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under this Act;
(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;
(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and
(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. .
(3) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;
(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court
or office;
(e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and
Page 2 of 11
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
(4) Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of
Parliament, or the State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds.
If the allegations made by the Complainant were true, it meant that persons lawfully exercising their rights under the Right to Information Act were being unduly harassed and physically assaulted. The allegations that the assault was carried out in the presence of police and MCD officials led to a suspicion of probable collusion. The Commission has been given the powers to initiate an enquiry in a complaint under Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act, when enquiring into a complaint under Section 18 (1). Section 18 (3) of the RTI Act also confers the powers of a Civil Court on the Commission when it is inquiring into any matter under Section 18.
Given the gravity of the matter the Commission wrote letters dated 18/02/2010 to the Commissioner of Police and Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi informing them about the matter and requesting them to inquire into the matter and submit a report to the Commission before 24/02/2010.
The Commission received a letter on 24/02/2010 from Mr. Sagar Preet Hooda, Deputy Commissioner of Police (North) requesting for an extension of time for two weeks. The Commissioner accepted his request for extension and granted him extension till 03/03/2010. On 03/03/2010 at around 6.45 pm, an Inspector from the North District submitted a letter dated 02/03/2010 from the DCP stating that a writ petition had been filed in the High Court against the direction of the Commission and that the Commission was requested to adjourn the matter for 10 days.
The Commission asked for a copy of the writ petition filed by the DCP (North) in the Delhi High Court which was received by the Commission on 05/03/2010. The writ petition has not been served to the Commission. The main ground for the Writ Petition appears to be that the letter sent by the Commission to the Commissioner of Police is bad in law as the Commission has 'over reached the powers' conferred on it under the RTI Act. According to the Petitioner, the allegations made by the Appellant were absolutely incorrect and the assumption of collusion made by the Commission was based on conjecture and surmises. The Petitioner has also contended that even if the allegations made by the Appellant were true, the Commission did not have any powers under the Act to grant any remedy to the Appellant. Grounds mentioned in the Petition include the following:
"J. Because respondent No. 1 has no [power, jurisdiction or authority etc. to pass an order observing that he has taken cognizance under Section 18(1)(f) and to initiate an Page 3 of 11 inquiry under Section 18(2) of the Act or to call for a inquiry or a status report in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
K. Because in writing the impugned letter and while assign the impugned order respondent No.1 has not only over reached the powers conferred on it under the Act but has also committed mistakes and grave irregularities even in recording the facts of the case besides usurping and trying to exercise the exclusive statutory powers of Criminal Court."
The Commission has till date not received a response from the Commissioner, MCD despite telephonic reminders to his office.
The Commission decided to call some of the people present to understand whether a RTI Applicant was deliberately obstructed from undertaking inspection which had been ordered by the Central Information Commission and whether the assault on the two persons was with the intention to prevent them from undertaking inspection.
Notices dated 05/03/2010 summoning the following persons were issued by the Commission directing them to appear in the inquiry to be held to consider the issues arising from the Complaint on 09 March 2010 at 4 p.m.:
1. Mr. NK Gupta, SE & PIO (SPZ)
2. Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AE (B)
3. Mr. SS Arya, AE (Works)
4. Mr. VS Rai, JE (Works)
5. Mr. Virender, Surveyor, L&E Department
6. Mr. DC Nauneria, Surveyor, L& E Department
7. Inspector, House Tax Department, Ward No. 75 The Notices were received by Mr. NK Gupta by hand and he was directed to serve them to all the concerned persons. The Appellant was also informed about the inquiry and asked to appear before the Commission for the inquiry.
During the inquiry the following persons were present:
1. Mr. Surinder Puri, Complainant/Appellant
2. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Representative of the Appellant
3. Mr. R. Tyagi, Representative of the Appellant
4. Mr. Parmod Sharma, Representative of the Appellant
5. Mr. Manmohan Gupta, Representative of the Appellant
1. Mr. NK Gupta, SE & PIO, SPZ
2. Mr. SK Aggarwal, EE MII
3. Mr. SS Arya, AE
4. Mr. VS Rai, JE (W)
5. Mr. DC Nauneria, Surveyor, L&E Department
6. Mr. Prahlad, AZI
7. Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AE(B) Page 4 of 11
8. Mr. AK Singh, EE(B) During the inquiry, each person deposing before the Commission was asked to come in one at a time and once they had finished their account they were allowed to sit and listen to the deposition of the others. Each person was asked to narrate the sequence of events on the day of inspection starting from the time that they all met at the MCD Office and then proceeded to the inspection site and subsequent events. At the end the persons who had deposed were allowed to give their clarifications or contradict the statements of the others.
The following statements were recorded during the inquiry:
STATEMENT OF MR. SS ARYA, AE, MCD The Police was brought to the inspection site by the MCD officials. There were two people to do the measurement who came along with them. They were prepared to take all five persons who had come on behalf of the Appellant. They did not ask the Appellant to send only two representatives. The following people were present for the inspection- Mr. Sailesh Kumar, AE; Mr. Virendra and Mr. Nurani from the L& E Dept., Mr. Rai, JE.. He does not know who were the persons asking the questions to the Appellant and therefore cannot identify them. The inspection report was only signed by MCD officials as the inspection was completed on that date in the presence of the Appellant and his representatives and was only completed later on. The Appellant refused to sign the inspection report. 50-60 people had collected near the inspection site who surrounded the persons who had come for inspection. 4-5 policemen were trying to control the crowd. The two representatives of the Appellant then went back to the place where Mr. Surinder Puri was waiting. He stated that no fight happened in front of him - only arguments took place wherein certain persons were asking who the Appellant was and why they were doing inspection.
After giving the initial statement, I admitted that the manhandling did start near the dispensary but the main fight happened on the main road.
After the altercation, I went to the office of the EE and told the EE that the inspection was incomplete and we made an application to the SHO of the police that the measurement was no complete and we need help to complete it. Our man took it to the SHO who refused to accept this letter and said that they would come for the inspection. After 30-45 minutes the police force came and we completed the measurement without the Appellant.
Sd/-
Mr. SS Arya AE, MCD SP Zone Page 5 of 11 Sd/-
In the presence of Mr. SK Agarwal EE, MCD SP Zone 09 March 2010 STATEMENT OF MR. VS RAI, JE, MCD The police force was brought to the site by the AE and JE. He cannot remember the names of the other persons present during the inspection except Mr. Virender singh from the L& E Deparrtment, AE from the Buildign Department and Mr. SS Arya, AE. When they left the MCD office there were 5-6 people on behalf of the Appellant but only 2 people did the inspection. He does not know why only two people came for the inspection. While doing measurement he was making some notes on a paper, which he has not brought with him. He has brought along the site plan which was made later on and not during the inspection. 200-300 people came to the site before the measurement was completed and started asking questions about the Appellant. The assault did not happen in front of him but happened on the main road. The police was present during the physical assault. As the measurement was not completed, they went with the SHO and 18-20 police personnel later on to complete the measurement. This was completed without the presence of the Appellant.
Sd/-
Mr. VS Rai JE, MCD, SP Zone Sd/-
In the presence of Mr. SK Agarwal EE, MCD SP Zone 09 March 2010 STATEMENT OF MR. MANMOHAN GUPTA 5 members of the society along with the JE, Mr. V.S. Rai, AE Mr. Arya, EE and other MCD officials proceeded towards the inspection site. Their vehicle was stationed at the store office. The society members were stopped at the entrance of the lane. Only two of the members were allowed inside for the inspection. While the measurement was being carried on, some men attacked them from behind who allegedly were Satbir Sharma's son and his accomplices. Mr. Puri was meanwhile sitting in the office of Mr. Tyagi which was nearby to the inspection site. Mr. Puri was soon informed of the unrest at the site. The police was tried to be contacted on 100.Subsequently, the driver came and informed of their car's tire being deflated at the site. Mr. Hooda was contacted on telephone who asked the Appellant to contact the SHO. On reaching the police station they were informed that Mr. Ajay Kumar was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital. The Hindu Rao authorities discharged the injured with remarks of being fine even when Mr. Kumar was profusely bleeding. Inspite of repeated requests to refer the injured to another hospital the Page 6 of 11 authorities did not consider. Later in the night the injured had to be taken to Sri Ganga Ram where he was advised a surgery for the fracture of the nose bone.
Sd/-
Mr. Manmohan Gupta (Representative of the Appellant) Sd/-
In the presence of Mr. Surender Puri.
STATEMENT OF MR. AJAY KUMAR Mr. Arya did not allow more than two of the members inside for the inspection. Therefore, Mr. Manmohan Gupta and Mr. Ajay Kumar went in for the inspection. For the measurements, the dispensary adjacent to the inspection site was taken as the reference point. Soon a mob arrived on site questioning them as to why or how the inspection was getting conducted. He alleges that the mob was headed by Mr. Satbir Sharma, his son Mr. Sanjay Sharma and other accomplices. They were attacked from behind. Mr. Manmohan was slapped initially. Mr. Ajay was then held by the mob and was threatened to be killed. This was followed by an attack on Mr. Ajay with an iron rod which injured his nose and he fell unconscious. After regaining consciousness he walked up till the police station from where he was taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital. The Hindu Rao authorities discharged the injured in the evening around 7.30 inspite of bleeding profusely. Later in the night around 11.30 pm because of excessive pain and bleeding he was taken top Sri Ganga Ram Hospital where a surgery was advised.
Sd/-
Mr. Ajay Kumar (Representative of the Appellant) Sd/-
In the presence of Mr. Surender Puri.
STATEMENT OF MR. SHAILESH KUMAR , AE, MCD According to him 3 members of the society were present for the inspection. There were 7 police officials, 2 from the House Tax Department and others from Town Planning, JE Mr. Shiv Dutt, AE, Mr. Arya. He reached the inspection site prior to others who were only on their way to the site. He has no idea as to why Mr. Surinder Puri and other society members stayed back at the entrance of the lane. While the measurement was on, a mob of 15-16 people gathered, including women in comparatively large numbers. The mob wanted to enquire who the Appellant was and why the inspection was carried out, on whose orders etc. When the crowd became wild the police tried to control the mob and in the process pushed out the Appellant's representatives. After this he reverted back to his office.
Page 7 of 11Sd/-
Mr. Shailesh Kumar (AE, Building) Sd/-
In the presence of Mr. A K Singh (Executive Engineer) STATEMENT OF MR. SURINDER PURI Around 11.00am the Appellant and other members of the society left for the inspection.2 hours were spent in the store office, where some records were shown to them. They had to wait for the other MCD officials.7 police officials accompanied them for the inspection. The Appellant's vehicle was following them. The AE only let in 2 of the members of the society. Since A K Rajbeer Tyagi's office was next to the inspection site Mr. Puri went there and sat while the inspection was going on. Soon after Mr. Manmohan came in to inform him of the unrest at the inspection site. The SHO was contacted to inform the same. Subsequently he was informed that the driver was held at the inspection site and the car's tyres were deflated and the car was tampered with. All of this was being reported to SHO followed by ACP and the DCP. The DCP asked Mr. Puri to make the JE and AE speak to him. This was followed by a verbal alteration. Meanwhile another vehicle was called in by Mr. Puri and they went to the police station where they were told that Mr. Ajay has been admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital. At around 3 pm, the AE Mr. Arya informed Mr. Puri that the force has been stationed at the inspection site and now they may come and complete the inspection of the property. Later the SHO also called to inform the same. However, Mr. Puri refused to do the inspection since Mr. Ajay was injured critically. At around 4.30 pm someone called to inform that there had been serious fiddling with Mr. Puri's car. SHO was contacted to report the same and to enquire since Mr. Puri had earlier requested the SHO to take his car into custody. This is when the SHO informed Mr. Puri that the crime team has been called upon. At around 8 in the evening Mr. Ajay got a call asking him to record his statement. Since Hindu Rao authorities had discharged the injured inspite of profuse bleeding. At around 10 pm Mr. Ajay had to be rushed to Sri Ganga Ram Hospital where his injury was taken cognizance of. SHO was contacted presuming their statement would be recorded. A hearing was scheduled on the 14th January in MM and only on the 18th January was an FIR registered.
Sd/-
Surinder Puri Sd/-
In the presence of Mr. Ajay Kumar.
During the inquiry on 08/03/2010, it emerged that there were two beldars who had accompanied the MCD team to assist in measurement- Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Beldar, Ward No. 75 and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Beldar, Ward No. 75. Mr. NK Gupta was asked to bring these to persons before the Commission. They appeared before the Commission on Page 8 of 11 11/03/2010. The Commission took their statement on record. The statement were written in Hindi and submitted to the Commission on 11/03/2010. The following is a translation of the statement made by them.
STATEMENT OF MR. RANJEET SINGH, BELDAR, MCD I went alongwith policemen with Mr. Puri's people for survey in accordance with the Commission's order. Even before the survey was completed, 150 people collected at the site and started asking Mr. Puri's people who they are and started pushing Mr. Puri's representatives. Therefore, we returned alongwith policemen. Mr. Puri's representatives ran away somewhere as the crowd was chasing them. After this I returned to my office and later went back to the inspection site with more police personnel and restarted the survey process.
Sd/-
Ranjeet Singh s/o Charan Singh Beldar, Ward No. 75 In the presence of Mr. NK Gupta, PIO & SE STATEMENT OF MR. MUKESH KUMAR I along with other officials from my office and around 9-10 Policemen went to do the survey. Just when we started taking measurements, a crowd collected there and they started asking what is happening here. Arguments broke out in the crowds. At that point Mr. VS Rai asked them to return and said that they will come later with a larger police force and complete the survey. We all returned from there.
Sd/-
Mukesh Kumar Beldar, Ward No. 75 In the presence of Mr. NK Gupta, PIO & SE During the hearing, a site plan of the property was submitted to the Commission which had been made after the measurements had been completed by the MCD officials at a later point of time in the presence of a larger police force. All dimensions necessary to arrive at exact area of the structure have not been recorded. The Complainant has produced a reply to another RTI Application in which the Assistant Assessor and Collector, SP Zone has stated that the area of the Property No. 224, Gali No.7, Padam Nagar is 240 sq. yards( ie. about 200 sq.m). However by calculating the area of the structure from the available measurements, the area of the property as measured by the MCD officials is certainly more than 806 sq. m. This area is over four times the size of the plot of the owner, which indicates a possible encroachment. When the Commission Page 9 of 11 questioned the officers who had appeared before it during the inquiry about whether any action was proposed to be taken in view of the fact that the actual site measured appeared to be over at least four times the area of the plot as per as the MCD's record, they had shown no inclination about taking action in the matter From the statements made before the Commission, the following observations may be made on points which are common to the deposition of all:
• As some tension was anticipated both parties had requested the Police to be present during the inspection.
• A crowd had gathered before the Inspection could be completed and persons were asking questions to the representatives of the Appellant. • Some level of altercation took place either at the inspection site or just away from it on the Main Road. Even the MCD officials have admitted that there was some pushing around and arguments.
• The inspection could not be completed due to the presence of the crowd. It was completed at later point in the absence of Appellant or his representatives but in the presence of a larger Police force.
• Mr. Ajay Kumar had sustained injuries and had been taken to Hospital by the police.
Decision:
The Commission finds from the statements that Police personnel were present during the whole episode and were either unable to or unwilling to take any action to intervene and disperse the crowd. This points to a very sorry state of affairs of law and order. Trouble had been anticipated at the site and when it did start, the Police was unable or unwilling to take any action. The incident took place on 12 January 2010. The Commission requested for a report on the incident before 24/02/2010 which the Police has not submitted. Now it is over ten weeks since the incident occurred, but the police did not give a report but instead deemed it a fit case to oppose in a writ petition.
Complaint is allowed.
The appellant was prevented from carrying out the inspection to arrive at the facts. MCD officers and police officers were present but could not ensure that the inspection could be carried out.
With regard to the allegations of physical assault, the Commission finds that offences under the Indian Penal Code may have been committed in the present case against the representatives of the Appellant. However, the Commission as a statutory body does not have the powers to investigate allegations against offences under the Indian Penal Code or take action under the Code of Criminal Procedure. When such incidents are brought to the notice of the Commission, the Commission can initiate an inquiry at its level under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act and it has to rely on external agencies such as the Police and the MCD to undertake part of inquiry and assist the Commission. As a statutory body, the Page 10 of 11 Commission can work effectively only if it gets cooperation from other Departments of the Government especially those which are trained in investigative methods. If the statutory bodies such as the Delhi Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi decide not to assist the Commission in the performance of its statutory function, the Commission will find it difficult to discharge its duties under the RTI Act.
Neither the Commissioner, MCD nor the Commissioner, Delhi Police have extended cooperation in the conduct of this inquiry. The Commission expresses the hope that the police and the MCD will do their duty and help statutory authorities in performing their functions, failing which it would not be possible for Citizens to exercise their fundamental right to information to 'contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed', which is the objective and promise of the Right to Information Act 2005.
Citizens rightly expect that the Information Commission must ensure their protection when they are using Right to Information to unearth and challenge illegal activities. It is with deep concern that I admit that I am unable to take any further action as my powers under the Act have now been rendered completely ineffective by the non-cooperation of the Police and the MCD. I hope that all statutory agencies will cooperate to ensure that the rule of law prevails.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 25 March 2010 Page 11 of 11