Central Information Commission
Mahesh Lakhaani vs Delhi Police on 30 April, 2019
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/2017/181640
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/167838
Mahesh Lakhaani ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
... निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o Addl. Deputy ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Police, South District, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/complaint:
SA/ Complaint :
RTI : 24.08.2017 FA : 23.09.2017
04.12.2017/ 25.09.2017
CPIO : 20.09.2017 FAO : 16.10.2017 Hearing : 29.04.2019
ORDER
1. Shri Mahesh Lakhaani filed a second appeal and a complaint vide case Nos. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/181640 and CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/167838 in respect of an RTI application dated 24.08.2017. Both the appeal and complaint are being clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.
Page 1 of 62. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, seeking information on 12 points pertaining to status report dated 26.07.2017 filed before the Hon'ble Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, Delhi in respect of FIR No. 18 dated 14.01.2017 registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj, including, inter-alia, (i) did the accused, Tanishk Lakhani, vide his letters dated 12.05.2017 and 14.05.2017 inform the Investigation Officer about the incident of 22.02.2016, when the complainant revisited the matrimonial home in Noida to take away her personal belongings, and (ii) did the accused, along with his letter dated 12.05.2017, provide a copy of the police complaint filed by the applicant with Noida Police to the I.O..
3. The appellant/complainant filed a second appeal and a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought for under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He contended that the information sought by him relating to the Status Report dated 26.07.2017 filed by I.O. does not impede the investigation or prosecution of offender in any manner. The appellant/complainant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for and to take necessary action against the CPIO.
Hearing:
4. The appellant/complainant Shri Mahesh Lakhaani and the respondent Shri S.P. Samaria, Sub-Inspector, South District, Delhi Police, Delhi were present in person.
Page 2 of 65. The appellant/complainant submitted that the I.O. has filed a 'false' Status Report before the Court stating that he did not cooperate during the investigation. He further contended that the information sought by him relating to the Status Report dated 26.07.2017 filed by I.O. could not have impede the investigation or prosecution of offender in any manner. Hence, the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought for under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He further informed that matter is already pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for quashing the complaint filed against him and his son, Shri Tanishk Lakhani by his daughter- in-law under Section 498-A, IPC. Hence, the information regarding whether the letters dated 12.05.2017, 14.05.2017, etc., relating to the 'Dowry List' were received by I.O., IS Ram Pratap Yadav should be provided to him. The appellant/complainant also requested to take penal action against the CPIO for not providing the requisite information to him.
6. The respondent submited that appellant/complainant and his son are prime accused in the complaint of dowry registered against them and since investigation in the matter was pending as on the date of receipt of the RTI application, no information could have been provided to him as the disclosure of the same would have impeded the investigation process. However, the respondent could not justify as to how the disclosure would have impeded the investigation. The respondent admitted his lapse in denying information to the appellant/complainant. He, however, stated that this was due to an error of judgement on the part of CPIO rather than any malafide or deliberate effort to withhold or deny information. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same. The respondent further clarified that Page 3 of 6 investigation has now been completed and charge sheet has been filed before Patiala House Court on 20.04.2019. Further, he admitted that though the letters had been received, the same were attached in the file which has been submitted to the Court.
Decision:
Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/181640
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent could not explain as to how the disclosure of the information sought for would have impeded the investigation. Hence, information has been wrongly denied by the respondent under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent has admitted that this was due to an error of judgement on his part as he had wrongly/bonafidely presumed that since the appellant and his son are prime accused in the matter, disclosure of any information during pendency of investigation would have impeded the process of investigation. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide point-wise information, as per the available records, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/167838
8. The Commission observes that the information sought for could not be provided to the complainant due to error of judgement on the part of the CPIO concerned. However, it cannot be said that the CPIO had acted consciously and deliberately with a malafide intention to provide incorrect or misleading Page 4 of 6 information to the complainant. Further, no penalty can be imposed for wrong judgment. Moreover, in a decision in the matter of Kripa Shanker v. Central Information Commission- judgment dated 18.09.2017 in W. P. (C) No. 8315/ 2017, the High Court of Delhi held that:
"....13... Indisputably, merely because the view taken by a PIO is not correct, it would not lead to an inference that he is liable to penalty. There may be cases where the PIO is of the view that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act. If this view is subsequently found to be incorrect, it would not necessarily mean that he would be subjected to penalty. The question of imposition of penalty depends on whether the conduct of PIO is reasonable and whether there is any bonafide justification for denial of information; penalty is levied only if it is found that the information was denied without reasonable cause."
In view of the above ratio, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
9. Nonetheless, the Commission would like to counsel the CPIO, Delhi Police to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur, and information is provided to the information seeker after due application of mind and as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
10. With the above observations, the complaint as well as the second appeal is disposed of.
Page 5 of 611. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 30.04.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) O/o Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South District, 1st Floor, DCP Office Complex, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South District, 1st Floor, DCP Office Complex, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
3. Shri Mahesh Lakhaani Page 6 of 6