Central Information Commission
Sandeep Ahuja vs Delhi Police on 15 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000855
Dated 13.06.2017
Appellant : Shri Sandeep Ahuja,
40-B, New Lyall Pur Colony,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110052.
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
Delhi Police, O/o the DCP,
East District, Mandawali,
Fazalpur, Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 13.06.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application : 01.03.2016
CPIOs reply : 01.04.2016
First appeal : 08.04.2016
FAA's Order : 05.05.2016
Second Appeal : 19.05.2016
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East District, Delhi Police seeking the action taken report on the complaint/DD entries sent to the DCP, East District, Delhi Police regarding noise pollution from unauthorized loudspeakers installed at the Mosques.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that false and misleading information has been provided by the CPIO and that the FAA did not give him an opportunity of personal hearing before disposing of his first appeal.
Page 1 Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Kaul and the respondent Shri Omender Singh, Sub-Inspector, East District, Delhi Police were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he had sought information pertaining to the action taken on his complaint dated 04.02.2016. However, the action has not been taken as per the Standing Order No. 363 dated 20.04.2009 issued by the Commissioner of Police according to which the DCPs, ACPs and SHOs of all Districts were responsible for ensuring the loudspeaker menace in the city. The appellant further submitted that he was merely informed that his complaint forwarded to the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC). However, his RTI application was not transferred to the CPIO, DPCC for necessary action.
5. The respondent submitted that due information as per the available records was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 01.04.2016.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that due information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. The Commission further observes that though the complaint of the appellant was transferred to the DPCC and SDM/Gandhi Nagar, his RTI application was not transferred, which should have been transferred to the CPIO, DPCC and CPIO, O/o SDM/Gandhi Nagar under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, would like to counsel the CPIO, East District, Delhi Police to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 2
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page 3