Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar Verma vs Delhi Police on 17 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2023/121478
Shri Ashok Kumar Verma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, Rohini District ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.05.2024
Date of Decision : 15.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.07.2022
PIO replied on : 24.08.2022
First Appeal filed on : 20.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : 24.03.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 11.05.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2022 seeking information on the following points about a complaint dated 16.06.2022:-
1. Provide certified copy(ies) of day wise and date wise Action Taken Report on the above mentioned Complaint.
2. Inform the name, designation, official cell phone number of the IO who has been deputed/assigned the job of investigation in the matter in accordance with the documents submitted with the complaint.
3. Kindly inform if there is any delay in initiating the action for investigation and enquiry in the matter and contents of the complaint and the documents submitted and annexed along with the complaint. If there is a delay in initiating action kindly inform the reasons thereof along with certified copy(ies) of the documents in support of the information.
4. Inform if the IO has met the complainant and recorded the statement of the complainant. If yes, kindly provide certified copy(ies) of the relevant document(s) in support of the information.
5. Inform if the IO has met the accused persons named in the complaint and recorded the statement of such persons. If yes, kindly provide certified copy(ies) of the relevant document(s) in support of the information.
6. Kindly inform if any FIR has been registered in the matter till date. If yes, kindly provide certified copy(ies) of the said FIR Page 1 of 3
7. If No FIR has been registered then kindly inform the status of the investigation/enquiry that proves the relevance and necessity to delay the registration of FIR in the matter.
The CPIO, Rohini District, Delhi vide letter dated 24.08.2022 replied as under:-
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- In this regard report has been obtained from SHO/Prashant Vihar, RD, Delhi is annexed (01 PP)."
The report from SHO/Prashant Vihar revealed the following:
1. Complaint is pending enquiry to SI Vijay. Hence, information could not be provided as per u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
2. SI Vijay PS Prashant Vihar, official cell phone number is not available.
3. Complaint is pending enquiry to SI Vijay. Hence, information could not be provided as per u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
4-7. As above.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.03.2023 stated as under:-
"Contentions put forth by the appellant and report of the PIO/Rohini District, Delhi have been considered. The undersigned has gone through the record placed on file. PIO/RD has provided relevant information to the appellant vide this office letter dated 24.8.2022. However, on appeal of the appellant, a fresh report has again been obtained from SHO/Prashant Vihar and as per report the complaint has been filed by the IO and Point wise reply is being provided to the appellant, with this order [2 PPs). With these observations, the appeal is disposed off."
The pointwise reply from SI Vijay Kumar is annexed with the FAA's order as under:
1) The complaint of complainant has already been filed vide LC 491 Dated 17/6/22
2) SI Vijay had concluded the enquiry and mobile number is already with the complainant as he was contacted through the said mobile.
3) Complaint had already been filed.
4) Complainant had been contacted through mobile. No statement of the complainant has been recorded.
5) Complaint has been filed after enquiry made.
6) No FIR has been registered as complaint has been filed.
7) The complaint of complainant has already been filed vide LC 491 Dated 17/6/22 A report is already attached with the above order passed by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 13.05.2024 has been received from the PIO, Rohini District which reveals the following position:
In this regard, it is stated that the status report of complaint has already been provided to the appellant vide this office No. 242/Appeal No. 38/23/Appeal/RTI/Rohini District, Delhi dated 24.03.2023. Later on, a letter addressed to Commissioner of Police, by the applicant has also been received Page 2 of 3 from Joint CP/NR Office vide Dy. No.11604 dated 19.05.2023 to grant him hearing, so he was called and heard by FAA/RD on 25.05.2023 and accordingly a letter was sent to the applicant vide No.402- 403/Dy.No.52/2023/RTI Cell/RD dated 25.05.2023 (copy of RTI/Appeal/hearing replies are attached herewith 2+3+1=06PPs). Moreover, the reply obtained on 2nd appeal from SHO/Prashant Vihar is also being linked with this letter to the Commission's link, for information (02 PPs) A copy of the enquiry report in this case has also been submitted by the Respondent, with the written submission.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present Respondent: ACP Virender Dalal and Insp. Vijay Shonwal were present during hearing.
Appellant contended that he was aggrieved because the FAA had not heard him and also because the SHO who does not hold any authority under the RTI Act, had wrongfully denied disclosure of information to him, invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Moreover, it was his contention that his complaint dated 16.06.2022 had been filed on 17.06.2022, but he was denied information thereof vide PIO's reply dated 24.08.2022 stating that enquiry is underway/pending. The Respondent explained that his complaint was being investigated upon and it was found that the matter had arisen out of inter se dispute between members of the Cooperative Group Housing Society, including the Appellant, but no cognisable offence was found and hence the complaint was filed.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the Respondent present for hearing, it is noted that the Respondent had furnished appropriate reply, to the Appellant. Considering the fact that the written submission filed by the Respondent is detailed and self explanatory as such, the Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 13.05.2024, with all relevant annexures, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. No further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off 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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)