Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Delhi Police on 18 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2024/623209
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 14.02.2025
Date of Decision : 14.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.03.2024
PIO replied on : 06.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 08.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 07.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"A bogus complaint was lodged with Subhash Place Police Station in Delhi, to defame me, with bad intention by Mr. Anjani Kumar, many Investigating Officer appointed and changed, to inquired bogus allegations, as I have tendered affidavit, along with regular proof before Delhi Police, Police Station, at Subhash Place, performing my fundamental duties as Community Policing, besides whistleblowing but official of Delhi Police, always mishandled my complaints and proof, even official of Delhi Police, tendered false and fabricated reports before Rohini Court, in Ct. Case No. 10982 of 2023, that I have not participated in the investigation, this is total false as I have tendered a bunch of evidence, and Delhi Police Sub Inspector recoded my statements, mobile call and messages on WhatsApp, can be referred, with 7838908607 with my mobile 9813010595, hence Delhi Police officials are engaged to save the culprits, causing unnecessary harassment and mental torture to me, which hurt my believes. Supply and verified after examine allegations against a gang of criminals, breaching public trust for profit, to cheat public being criminal conspiracy as cognizable offense: 1. Complete investigation and finding, action taken report on the legal status of their official website: whrpc.org/about-us/ World Human Rights Protection Commission, House No. Page 1 254, Kohat Enclave Pitampura, Delhi 110034 which has been established by an Act of Parliament under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1882 for the protection and promotion of human rights, publicly their claims is bogus to cheat and misguide public to attract with bad intention, being criminal conspiracy. 2. As per legal Notice of UGC, as attached as bogus and fake University: World Peace of United Nations University: As per official website International Human Rights Council Society (ihrcs.us) and wpunu.org/about MR. TAPAN KUMAR RAUTARAY, World Human Right Protection Commission at 201-202, Best Business Park, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi, along MRS. RITANJALI RAUTARAY, along with Mr. Anjani Kumar, their role needs immediate attention being Mastermind of this syndicate. Immediate attention:
1. Trust Registered, NGO Darpan and Trademarks obtained. 2. Whistleblowing Act and Community Policing needs respect instead insult. 3. STOP fraud and cheating for gain and profit by a criminal gang under the nose of Delhi Police: Cybercrime, impersonating as well. 4. State Emblem of India along with logo of United Nations, misuse without permission and authority."
The PIO-cum-Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-(I), North-West District, Delhi vide letter dated 06.04.2024 replied as under:-
Point No. 1 & 2:-The information sought does not come under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 07.05.2024 stated as under:-
4. "The undersigned has carefully considered the contention put-forth by the appellant in his online RTI appeal dated 08.04.2024 (received on 12.04.2024), online RTI application dated 08.03.2024 (received on 11.03.2024) and information provided by the PIO/NW. District vide letter dated 06.04.2024.
Upon consideration, it has been found that the PIO/NWD, Delhi vide letter dated 06.04.2024 has already provided the available point wise information to the appellant within the stipulated time. However, the copy of the same is enclosed herewith (Total-01 page). With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is hereby disposed off accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri SI Jitendra Kumar The Commission considered the reply dated 06.4.2023 provided by the CPIO.
Page 2 Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...." Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO Page 3 and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)