Rajnish Srivastava vs Delhi Police on 20 June, 2024

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajnish Srivastava vs Delhi Police on 20 June, 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/2023/624207.

Shri RAJNISH SRIVASTAVA                                         ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, North West District                                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police


Date of Hearing                          :   19.06.2024
Date of Decision                         :   19.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           31.07.2022
PIO replied on                    :           31.08.2022
First Appeal filed on             :           21.09.2022
First Appellate Order on          :           17.10.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :           19.05.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2022 seeking information on following points:-

"1. DATE WHEN THE COMPLAINT OF RAJNISH SRIVASTAVA WAS RECEIVED IN THE DCP OFFICE.

2.DATE WHEN THE ENQIRY WAS COMPLETED.

3. WAS THERE ANY DELAY IN ISSUING ENQUIRY REPORT(YES/NO)

3.THE ENQUIRY REPORT IS WITH CONCLUSION(YES/NO)

4.NAME THE OFFICERS WHO JOINED THE ENQUIRY.

5.NAME THE OFFICERS WHO DID NOT JOINED THE ENQIRY.

6.NAME THE OFFICERS WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE FOUND CONTRADICTORY IN THE ENQUIRY.

Etc."

The CPIO, Addl. Dy. CP(1), North West District vide letter dated 31.08.2022 replied as under:-

"1. As per report obtained from HAC/NWD (The principal supplier of the information), the complaints in question were received in the office of DCP/NWD vide Dy.Nos.5153/GD/DCP/NWD dated 5338/GD/DCP/NWD dated 08.06.2021, respectively. 02.06.2021 and Page 1 of 4 2-7. The enquiry report obtained from HAC/NWD (The principal supplier of the information) enclosed herewith (Total-02 pages), which is self explanatory.

8. As per report btained from PRO/NWD (The principal supplier of the information), the applicant met the DCP/NWD on 02.06.2022.

9. As per report obtained from PRO/NWD (The principal supplier of the information), the applicant met the A.DCP-II/NWD on 22.09.2021, 07.06.2022 and 27.07.2022, respectively.

10. As per report obtained from PRO/NWD (The principal supplier of the information), the applicant met the A.DCP-I/NWD on 28.06.2022 and 18.07.2022, respectively.

11. As per report obtained from PRO/NWD (The principal supplier of the information), the applicant met the ACP/PG/NWD on 04.05.2022."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.09.2022. The FAA vide order dated 17.10.2022 stated as under:-

"4.

The undersigned has carefully considered the contention put-forth by the appellant in his RTI appeal dated 21.09.2022 (received on 25.09.2022), initial online RTI application dated 31.07.2022 (received on 02.08.2022) and information provided by the PIO/NW. District vide letter dated 31.08.2022. Upon consideration, it has been found that the PIO/NWD, Delhi vide letter dated 31.08.2022 has provided the point wise information to the appellant within the stipulated period. Besides this, in the present appeal, appellant has mentioned that he had filed an RTI No. (DEPOL/R/P/22/08855) and the reply provided by the department is not up to the mark. Moreover, he never met the DCP Ms. Usha Rangnani on 02.06.2022 and requested to check the video recording of the DCP office of dated 02.06.2022. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is remitted back to the PIO/North West District, Delhi with the directions to provide the specific information to the appellant on point Nos. 2 to 8 of his online RTI application dated 31.07.2022 within 04 weeks from the receipt of this order after examine his online appeal and RTI application under the provision of RTI Act-2005. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is hereby disposed off accordingly."

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

In compliance of order of FAA, the PIO, , Addl. Dy. CP (1), North West District has furnished reply dated 16.11.2022 as under:

2, 4, 5 , 6(1), 7, 6(2), 7(3)The enquiry report which has already been provided to the applicant vide this office letter No. ID No. 1701/22/3489/RTI-Cell/NWD dated 31.08.2022 is self explanatory in this regard.

3. The information sought by the applicant does not come under the purview of "Information" described in section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 as per the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in writ petition No.419/2007 titled as Dr. Celsa Pinto v/s Goa State Information Commission.

Page 2 of 4

3(1). The information sought by the applicant does not come under the purview of "Information" described in section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 as per the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in writ petition No.419/2007 titled as Dr. Celsa Pinto v/s Goa State Information Commission.

7(1), 7(2). The information sought by the applicant does not come under the purview of "Information" described in section 2(1) of RTI Act, 2005 as per the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in writ petition No.419/2007 titled as Dr. Celsa Pinto v/s Goa State Information Commission.

8. The applicant had not any meeting with Ms. Usha Rangnani, IPS, the DCP/NWD on 02.06.2022, as per register maintained by PRO/NWD. Hence, the information earlier provided to the applicant vide this office letter No. ID No. 1701/22/3489/RTI-Cell/NWD dated 31.08.2022 is hereby withdrawn as the same is found to be given inadvertently.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Paliwal, ACP/PG Cell, NWD, Mr. Jitender Kumar, SI, RTI, NWD, Mr. Vijay Singh, RTI Cell-NWD.

The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he had raised 11 queries in his instant RTI Application and point-wise reply has not been furnished by the PIO.

The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been furnished to the Appellant. He stated that point-wise reply has been furnished by the PIO. Furthermore, in compliance of the order of FAA a revised reply 16.11.2022 has been provided to the Appellant. They averred that complete enquiry report has been provided to the Appellant within stipulated time frame.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission