Central Information Commission
Shri Sohan Al Sethi vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (West Delhi) on 3 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00423 dated 6.3.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Sohan al Sethi
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (West Delhi)
Facts:
By an application of 6.1.06 Shri Sohan Lal Sethi of Paschim Vihar, New Delhi applied to the DCP(W) seeking the following information :
"It is requested that result of the enquiry against SHO and SI may kindly be intimated to me.
Also provide copy of my complaint and enquiry report."
To this he received a response dated 19.1.06. Not satisfied Shri Sethi moved his first appeal on 11.2.06 before the Jt. Commissioner of Police, Police HQ who in his order of 23.2.06 has satisfied himself that legible copies of the necessary documents have been supplied to appellant. He has gone on to examine the second issue raised in the appeal as follows:
"The second issue pertains to the alleged no reply or wrong reply by the enquiry officer i.e. SHO/ Paschim Vihar to the points raised by him in his complaint. This issue, thus, stems from an interpretation given by the appellant to a document supplied to him by the PIO/West. Since present appeal has to look whether documents sought were supplied or not, as such, at this stage, it would not necessary to go into the merits of this aspect. Besides, it may be mentioned that the issue was not taken up by the appellant before PIO/West District. Nothing stops him to agitate this issue by making a separate representation for redressal of his grievance to DCP/West.' Shri Sohan Lal Sethi has then moved his second appeal before us with the following request:
"Copy of order passed by DCP/West against Shri Hari Singh, Rajender Kumar former SHO and action taken."1
In response to our appeal notice Shri Sharad Agarwal, CPIO and DCP West Distt. has responded that this infact is a duplicate of the appeal already considered by us and decision announced on File No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00135. He has appended a copy of that appeal. He, therefore, submitted that the decision taken on 9.4.07 on the above appeal will hold good in this case also.
The appeal was heard on 3.7.2008. The following are present:
Appellant Sh. S. L. Sethi Sh. Rajiv Sethi Respondents Sh. Pravesh Kumar, S.I. Appellant submitted that he had indeed received the documents sought in the earlier appeal. However, in this appeal he has sought the results of the enquiry against SHO & SI but in the other case he has received the enquiry report only against the SHO and not the SI.
We have examined the application under File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00423 and File No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00135. We find that whereas in File No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00135, the RTI request is worded as below:
"I was wrongly arrested by SI Hari Singh and Rajender Kumar former SHO, Paschim Vihar in case under section 107/151 CrPC. I request that my application along with result of enquiry may be made to me";
the wording of the request in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00423 is as follows:
"It is submitted that I was wrongly arrested under section 107/151 Cr. PC by SI Hari Singh and SHO Rajender Singh, Paschim Vihar in the year 1955.
I was discharged from the court of SDM/West and submitted many complaint against local Police and SHO Paschim Vihar.
It is requested that result of the enquiry against SHO and SI may kindly be intimated to me.
Also provide copy of my complaint and enquiry report."2
From the above, it is amply clear that the two applications although submitted on the same date and similar in many ways are infact different in that in the present application he has also requested for the result of the enquiry against SHO and SI. The decision by Sh. Bhim Sen Bassi, Jt. Commissioner in the first appeal is also identical in both cases, although in File No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00135 the order of the Appellate Authority is not available on file, but is quoted in the response to that appeal notice received from Shri Sharad Agarwal, IPS.
DECISION NOTICE These are clearly two applications though on very similar lines and arising from the same incident. Whereas we have decided the matter in the File No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00135 as a case of grievance redress and advised appellant accordingly, based on the information already provided to him, in this case PIO Shri Sharad Agarwal DCP is directed to supply the information sought in the first appeal of his request i.e. the result of the enquiry against SHO and SI if any, within ten working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice.
In this case, we therefore find that the information provided is incomplete but this is a result of the confusion due to the close resemblance of the two applications and is understandable. It cannot therefore be construed that incomplete information was 'knowingly' given. Hence no penalty will lie.
During the appeal Shri Sohan Lal Sethi also appealed that he is unable to walk, is crippled and may be provided some assistance from the welfare fund of Commissioner of Police under the Contributory Health Scheme. We can certainly vouch for the incapacity of Shri Sohan Lal Sethi, Retired Inspector of Delhi Police. This request is, therefore, forwarded together with this decision to Shri Y.S. Dadwal, Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police for his consideration.
3Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 3.7.2008 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 3.7.2008 4