Central Information Commission
Ms. Shama Parveen vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) West ... on 30 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00299-A & 332 dated 26-2-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Appellant: Ms. Shama Parveen,
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) West Dist. Delhi
FACTS
These are two appeals by Mrs. Shama Parveen of Bijnor (UP).
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00299 In our decision of 24.9.2007 we had decided as follows:-
"The CPIO is directed to dispatch the information stated to have been prepared on the basis of order of 1st Appellate Authority to appellant Mrs. Shama Praveen within one week of date of this decision notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, Central Information Commission.
We also find that information regarding points (a) (d) (g) (h) (i) has not been given. The CPIO Shri Robin Hibu DC (West) will, therefore, provide such information as is held by him or transfer the request to the appropriate authority u/s 6 (3) (i) and (ii) within 5 days of date of issue of this notice. This should have been done at the time of the receipt of the application.
As will be noted PIO has pleaded Section 8 (1) (e) and (g). Whereas recourse to Sec 8 (1) (g) has been upheld by Appellate Authority since this is a case of criminal proceedings from both sides, the issue of fiduciary relationship u/s 8 (1) (e) does not arise in a matter concerning registration of police cases.
The above decision was announced in the hearing. However, subsequent to the decision being announced we have received a telephone call from Bijnor from the father of complainant that although she had received the notice of hearing, the contact officer Mr. R.K. Goyal misled her. As per their fax message received at 5.17 pm on 24.9.'07 appellant Ms Shama Parveen has stated that they phoned Mr. Goyal at 12.30 p.m. who told the appellant to come to the Centre where he will meet them, but when the appellant reached the premises with her father at 1.10 p.m. Mr. Goyal had left for Vikas Bhavan, Bijnor. Due to which they could not appear for hearing.
We also find that during the hearing no officer of the NIC was in fact present. The attendant present at the Centre stated that they had been called away for a meeting. This leads to the 1 arising of a doubt that, taken in the context of the appeal alleging dowry harassment, of the possibility of malafide intention in preventing the appellant Ms. Shama Praveen from appearing before us. Whereas CPIO will comply with the directions given the hearing as noted in the Interim Decision above, for the reasons described a Post Decisional Hearing will now be held on 26th October 2007 at 1.30 p.m. through videoconference. All parties are directed to be present either at NIC HQ Delhi or NIC Centre Bijnor. Appellant will provide her contact numbers to the Registry so that she can be spoken to in case of any difficulty in appearing at the next hearing."
Subsequently we have received a copy of a letter dated 24.9.2007 from Shri Robin Hibu, PIO cum DCP, West District addressed to Ms. Shama Parveen enclosing the copy of the enquiry report conducted by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tilak Nagar as sought by her free of cost.
We then received a letter of 11.10.2007 from Ms. Shama Parveen in which she has submitted as follows:-
"I wish to place on records that the authorities of Delhi Police are totally unconcerned with the agony being felt by the victims of false implication since last 7 years, who have suffered humiliation, harassment and incarceration (251 days) on account of false implications by and at the instance of Shakir Ali (brother in law) in collusion with some police officials, in series of criminal cases in Delhi. We have been made to suffer all this because authorities of Delhi Police have failed to take pre- emptive action despite numerous representations disclosing fear of false implication and directions by NHRC, MHA and CVC etc. Seven years is a long time and my 70 years old father who has been also implication in said false and frivolous cases does not have many years ahead of him. These enquiry reports and information may help us satisfy the courts that the probes could prove nothing against us instead it is likely to disclose names of real culprits and Police officials involved in falsely implicating my family members. The information as directed by CIC may aid my family members vindication in the cases foisted on them."
Her plea under RTI is as follows:-
"PIO response should have provided entire information in compliance to CIC aforementioned order. However, PIO vide said response has merely provided a copy of enquiry report, which was sought, vide point No. (a) and no information has been provided in respect of points Point No. d), g), h) and i) despite direction by Hon'ble Commission."2
Subsequent to this we have received a copy of a further letter of 15.10.'07 from Shri Robin Hibu, IPS addressed to Ms. Shama Parveen giving a reply to points (a), (d), (g), (h) & (i) as directed by us.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00332 In this case the applicant made a request on 12.8.2006 for the following information:-
"A. i) A copy of Vigilance Enquiry Report submitted by Shri Amarjeet Singh, ACP/Vigilance.
ii) A copy of CP, Delhi order dated 10.03.2006.
iii) Action taken report/ copies of the applications moved by the DCsP North East and Crime and Railways u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC before the court. If CP, Delhi order dated 10.3.2006, has been complied with the DCsP.
iv) It is an admitted position vide Ld. DCP, Head Quarters affidavit dated 05th April 2006 that Shri Amarjeet Singh, ACP/ Vigilance recommended for further investigation of two under trail cases u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC in March 2003.
However, CP Delhi directed DCsP North East and Crime and Railways on 10.03.2006 to move applications u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC before the court and file appropriate report in the courts.
B i) Kindly provide me information/ let me know rationale behind this inordinate delay as to why 3 years time has been taken in passing an order on the recommendations made by Shri Amarjeet Singh, ACP/ Vigilance.
ii) I am also seeking information about action if any taken against the erring police officials for applying wilful dilatory tactics in the matter and dereliction of duties etc. because of causing delay of 3 years.
C) Seeking Action Taken on material documents and phone and Mobile numbers of conspirator of these 7 cases and erring police officials clearly showing nexuses between them were shown and submitted to the CP, Delhi on 12.4.2005, 27.10.2005, E-mail to the CP Delhi, Registered as No. 610/E-mail dated 23.4.2004 and 725/E-mail dated 16.5.2005 by my brother Shri Shahzad Ahmed. I am also seeking Action taken on complaint and material submitted before the CP, Delhi on 3.4.2005 by my father Shri Aftab Ahmed.
In this connection following information/ documents are sought:
i) Kindly provide entire information date wise and Para wise as to what action taken on aforementioned material documents shown and submitted to the CP, Delhi.3
ii) Kindly provide call details of mobile and phone numbers of police officials and conspirators shown and submitted to the CP, Delhi the latest on 27.10.2005.
iii) Kindly provide entire information as to what action has been initiated against the erring police officials and conspirators on the basis of material documents and call records.
iv) Kindly also provide me information as to what action has been initiated against the police officials who extracted money be pressurizing my family members. While my family members have made numerous requests in writing and in person to the CP, Delhi and other police authorities for carrying out scientific tests i.e. Narco Analysis, Brain Mapping and Lie detector tests on us the victims of false implication (corruption), Police officials and conspirators so as to ascertain the truth about offending the 7 offences and extracting money.
D) Kindly provide information as to what action has been taken on the complaint submitted in the O/o CP, Delhi on 23.6.2005 by my brother Shri Shahzad Ahmed.
E) Kindly provide full information/ procedure for filing complaints with international agencies like "UNHRC Amnesty international etc. against "Delhi Police".
Considering the plight of my family and situation in which my family members have been placed by Delhi Police; as "Delhi police foisted 7 false cases on my family members and committed atrocities on them and thus flouted their hum rights to pressurize to withdraw dowry case registered by me against my husband and in-laws R/o Delhi: In this matter some erring and guilty police officials have adopted cash-for-false implication- torture-incarceration-humiliation and harassment like approach. Despite making numerous complaints to the entire authorities of Delhi Police there is no fruitful redressal and business of false implication has been continued since last 7 years. Hence I have no other option then to file complaints with international agencies and making this matter a Global issue.
F) Kindly also provide other relevant information/ documents, which this authority may like to provide with respect to the numerous other complaints material filed since 12.5.2000 with the O/o CP, Delhi regarding false implication."
To this Ms Parveen received a response on 15.9.2006 point wise. Terming the information received "vague and incomplete" appellant Mrs. 4 Shama Parveen moved her first appeal before the Jt. Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), PHQ, New Delhi upon which Shri R. R. Upadhyay, Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ and First Appellate Authority once more replied to each of the questions as below:-
(i) "Complete Vigilance enquiry report conducted by Shri Amarjit Singh, ACP/Vigilance has already been provided to you by PIO/ Vigilance.
(ii) CP, Delhi had passed the orders on the file on 10.3.06 which have been intimated to you by the PIO/Vigilance.
(iii) Information relates to EDC/ NE and DCP/Crime and Railways and your complaint has been sent to them for necessary action. Copies of letters sent to them are enclosed herewith.
(iv) -Do-.
(v) Reply given by PIO vigilance is self-explanatory.
(vi) No action is called for as action was taken
immediately after the enquiry was completed.
(vii) The complaints dated 23.4.2005 and 16.05.05 were sent to DP/West Distt. vide Nos. 14985/HA-SR (Vig) dated 7.5.05 and 18205/HA-SR (Vig) dated 2.6.05 respectively for necessary action. Complaint dated 27.10.05 was sent to DCP/N-East Distt. vide No. 36347/HA-NDR (Vig.) dated 21.11.05 for necessary action. Complaint dated 3.4.06 was sent to DCP/ North vide No. 11307/HA-SR (Vig.) dated 20.4.06 for necessary action. You are, therefore, informed to contact the DC&P concerned regarding these complaints. No record of the complaint dated 12.4.05 has been found in the vigilance branch.
(viii) Information cannot be provided being personal record of the individuals under the provisions of RTI Act.
(ix) Reply given by PIO / Vigilance is satisfactory.
(x) No such allegations have been substantiated."
Appellant's prayer before us in 2nd appeal is as below:-
"i. Direct the DCP/ Vigilance the PIO and Addl.
CP/Vigilance the AA, Delhi Police to provide the entire information as requested vide AnnexureA-1.5
ii. Grant Rupees Ten-Lakh (Rs. 1,00,000/-) compensation for deliberately refusing information/ documents because of non-supply of which is leading to face avoidable trials in different court in Delhi, made to rush Delhi and appellant family has been compelled to file SLP in Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus causing serious emotional harm, social, financial and mental harassment and torture to entire family.
iii. Impose exemplary penalties for exhibiting irresponsible attitude and deliberately failing to act as per mandate of the RTI and thus 'frustrated' the object of the RTI Act 2005.
iv. Direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi/ appropriate authority to do the needful to ensure that no further harassment is caused to the appellant family for seeking this Hon'ble Commission's intervention in the matter.
v. Grant Cost of this complaint/ appeal as prescribed under sub section 8(b) of section 19 of the RTI Act."
The appeals were heard through audio/Videoconference on 30-7-2008. The following are present:
Appellants at NIC Studio, Bijnor.
Ms. Shama Parveen.
Shri Aftab Ahmed, father of appellant, assisting the veiled Ms Parveen.
Respondents at NIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri Jay Dev Singh, ACP/ HQ/ West Block/APIO. Shri Arunendra Singh, SI/DIC.
Shri Sanjay Kumar, DCP/Vigilance.
Because the VC communication was erratic the initial part of the hearing was conducted on telephone.
Shri Aftab Ahmed assisting appellant Ms. Shama Parveen agreed that he has received a response to all the points raised in appeal in File No. WB/A/07/00299, but stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided.6
In appeal in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/0033 appellant was asked which were the points answered to which she found the answers "vague and incomplete". Shri Aftab Ahmed submitted that he may be given an opportunity to re examine the file so as to provide the specific items to which he found the information provided unsatisfactory. Respondents have no objection.
DECISION NOTICE:
We find that in both cases all questions raised have been responded to. Besides, the issue before us in the case heard earlier was the legal argument in support of refusal and not delay in response. There are therefore no grounds for penalty. However, in file No. File No. WB/A/07/00299 appellant is not satisfied with the reply. Since this response has been given to her after the directions of this Commission dated 24.9.2007 she has not exhausted her option for moving a first appeal against the information so provided u/s 19 (1). If not satisfied with the information received she may, therefore, now move her first appeal before Shri Rajesh Kumar, JCP (Southern Range), PHQ, New Delhi, First Appellate Authority.
In File No. File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00332 since appellant asked for further time to present her case she is directed to address her objections to the information received point wise by 18th August 2008 to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission. The decision in the matter will be taken by us on merits unless a further hearing is called for in which case the parties will be duly informed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 30-7-2008 7 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 30-7-2008 8