Central Information Commission
Joginder Singh vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 8 November, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UTOCH/A/2023/133698
Joginder Singh .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
DSP HQ, Chandigarh Police,
Police Headquarters, Sector 9,
Chandigarh - 160009 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.10.2024
Date of Decision : 07.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.03.2023
CPIO replied on :
First appeal filed on : 11.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order :
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.08.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2023 seeking the following information:
1. G.O mess sector 26 में पिछले (10) दस सालों मैं purchase किये सामान िी complete List दी जाये Page 1 of 5
2. G.O mess में पिछले दस सालों िे िुराने सामान िो dispose off किया गया | How to dispose of sale out िर ददया गय or Available iन department applicant want to See it
3. िुललस िो ददये गये सेवादार/ गनमैन कि list Name Number िे साथ दी जाये तने सेवादार, गनमैन allowed है कितने सेवादार/ गनमैन घर िर आए कितने सेवादर office ने allot किए complete details दी जाय
4. Kindly provide the complete list of SC/ST obc/minority emploees with & complete details Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.05.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri A. Venkatesh, CPIO-cum-DSP, Smt. Harjeet Kaur, DSP, Smt. Manju Sharma, DSP/PLWC and Shri Karam Chand, Inspector (Security), attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite service of hearing notice.
Smt. Manju Sharma, DSP/PLWC, submitted that point No. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application pertains to their office and accordingly an adequate reply has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.04.2023, wherein the Appellant has been informed as under:
"Please refer to your RTI application vide no. 07/RTI-23/DSP-Lines (CPIO) dated 23.03.2023 (Point no. 1 & 2) has been received in the office of undersigned from the Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum-CPIO-Lines, Sector-26, Chandigarh seeking information under RTI Act.
In this regard, it is intimated that as reported by I/C Misc. Store, duly forwarded by Inspector-PLWC, Sector-26, Chandigarh, the requisite information/reply regarding point no. 1 & 2, that the information last 10 years is not readily available. You, are Page 2 of 5 hereby advise to inspect the record in any working day during office hours of Misc. Store, PLWC, Sector-26, Chandigarh as the same is in voluminous and after inspection, the same be provided to you as per rules. With this your, RTI application is stand disposed off as far as this office is concerned. However, if you are not satisfied with the information as provided, you may appeal to the Senior Superintendent of Police (Headquarters)-cum-1st Appellate Authority, Chandigarh Police Headquarters, Sector- 9D, UT, Chandigarh."
Shri Karam Chand, Inspector (Security), submitted that point No. 3 of the RTI Application pertains to their office and sufficient reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 17.04.2023, wherein the Appellant has informed as under:
"Please refer to your application dated 22.03.2023 on the subject cited above which has been received in the office of undersigned on 23.03.2023 through Incharge Public Window (PHQ)-cum-CAPIO, Sector-9, Chandigarh U/S 6(3) of RTI Act-2005. The requisite information regarding some part of point No. 3(Gunman) relates to Security Wing cannot be disclosed under the provision of Section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act-2005."
The Respondent further informed the bench that with respect to point No. 4 of the RTI Application, since the information sought is voluminous in nature, accordingly, an adequate reply has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 12.04.2023, wherein the Appellant has been informed as under:
"The requisite information is not available in the requested form and preparing the same would disproportionately divert the resources of this office, hence, denied u/s 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005."
A written submission has been received from Shri Vikas Sheokhand, CPIO-cum- DSP, vide letter dated nil, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"Kindly refer to file no. CIC/UTOCH/A/2023/133698 dated 03.10.2024, received on 14.10.2024, on the subject cited above.
It is submitted that appellant Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Late Sukhbir Singh, 553/1, Sector-38/A, Chandigarh (appellant) had filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 which was received in this office through In-charge Public Window (PHQ) vide his office no. 236/RTI/ CAPIO(PHQ)/UT/PWS, Dated:-22.03.2023. The RTI application was Page 3 of 5 also marked to Supdt.-Cum-CPIO (Establishment), PHQ, Sec-9 and DSP-Cum-CPIO (Lines), Police Lines Sec-26, Chandigarh. Wherein, some part of Point No. 3 relates with VIP Security Wing the appellant had sought the information "पुलिस अफसरों को दिये गये सेवािार/गनमैन की List Name Number के साथ िी जाए और ककतने-2 सेवािार/गनमैन allowed हैं। ककतने सेवािार/ गनमैन घर पर और ककतने सेवािार office में allowed हैं। क्रप्या complete details िी जाए। (Copy of RTI application is attached as Annexure-A).
In this regard, the requisite information was obtained from Inspector Security (Admin), Chandigarh. As per report, information relates to Sewadar attached with Police Officers in Point No. 3 relates to DSP-cum-PEB, PHQ Sec-9, Chandigarh. Hence, part of Point No. 3 w.r.t. (Sewadar) was transferred to DSP- cum-PEB, PHQ Sec-9 being custodian of information under section 6(3) of RTI Act- 2005. The reply of same information was supplied to appellant vide no. RTI- 4/CPIO(Security)/UT/D-45, Dated Chandigarh the: 27.03.2023 through registered post. (Copy of RTI application is attached as Annexure-B).
Further, requisite information relates with Gunmen attached with Police Officers in Point No. 3 relates to Security Wing cannot be disclosed under the provision of Section 8 (1) (G) of RTI Act-2005. The reply of same information was supplied to appellant vide no. RTI-4/CPIO(Security)/UT/D-48, Dated Chandigarh the: 17.04.2023 through registered post. (Copy of Reply of RTI application enclosed as 'Annexure-C'). Therefore, as per report on 22.03.2023, the applicant Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Late Sukhbir Singh had filed 1st appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority in respect of his RTI application, which was not received in the office undersigned. It is pertinent to mention here that, the appellant had sought name & number of the Gunman's & personal staff (helpers) attached with Police Officers, Moreover, the appellant has sought information common in nature and did not mentioned any name or number of specific police officer or name or number of any gunman attached with Police officers in his RTI application.
The information was withheld because revealing the gunman's name & number or numbers of gunmans are highly sensitive information increases the likelihood of a security breach. Additionally, it could draw any undesirable incidence and seriously compromise the security of the person providing protection. Thus, in light of the security context, the RTI Act's Section 8 (1)(G) has been refused. Submitted for kind perusal and further necessary directions please."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that suitable replies in terms of RTI Act has been given by the concerned Respondents vide letter dated 12.04.2023, 17.04.2023 and 20.04.2023. The Appellant has not participated in the hearing to contest the submission of the Respondent. No further action is required in the instant matter.Page 4 of 5
However, before parting with the instant case, the Commission notes that the Appellant has wilfully suppressed the replies provided by the concerned CPIOs while filing the instant Second Appeal. Thus, he has not approached the Commission with clean hands. The conduct is not appreciated.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)