Central Information Commission
Mohd. Shakeel Saifi vs Delhi Police on 15 March, 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/2017/168617
Mohd. Shakeel Saifi ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, O/o The Addl. Dy. ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Police, South West District, New
Delhi.
2. CPIO, O/o Addl. Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Police, West District, Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 08.06.2017 FA : 19.07.2017 SA : 26.09.2017
CPIO : 22.08.2017
FAO : 09.08.2017 Hearing : 13.03.2019
(Transfer)
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), SHO, Inderpuri Page 1 of 5 Police Station, New Delhi, seeking information pertaining to his complaint dated 20.12.2016, including, inter-alia, (i) a certified copy of the Action Taken Report (ATR) on his complaint, and (ii) certified copies of the statements of Smt. Amita Dev, Smt. Neeru Mehta and Smt. Tarika regarding his complaint.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO, Addl. DCP cum PIO, South-west District, Delhi Police transferred his RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the PIO, West Dist., Delhi Police for necessary action. However, no information/reply has been furnished to him by the CPIO concerned till date which is a deemed refusal of the information. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the desired information to him and to impose a penalty upon the CPIO.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Mohd. Shakeel Saifi and the respondent Shri Suresh Kumar, SI, Delhi Police, West District, Delhi were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO, Addl. DCP cum PIO, South-west District, Delhi Police transferred his RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the PIO, West Dist., Delhi Police for necessary action. However, no information/reply has been furnished to him by the CPIO concerned till date which is a deemed refusal of the information.
5. The respondent submitted that a copy of the point-wise reply dated 13.09.2017 received from SHO, PS Inder Puri, was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 18.09.2017. The appellant was provided a copy of the action taken Page 2 of 5 report in respect of the complaint dated 20.12.2016. He affirmed that no statements of Smt. Amita Dev, Smt. Neeru Mehta and Smt. Tarika regarding the complaint were recorded. Hence, no information is available on point no. 2 of the RTI application.
6. The appellant stated that he has not received the copy of letter dated 18.09.2017. Moreover, he is not satisfied with the CPIO's response to point no. 2 of the RTI application.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that as per the respondent a reply in response to the RTI application was provided to the appellant. However, as per the appellant, no reply in response to the RTI application was received. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to resend a copy of the CPIO's reply dated 18.09.2017 along with the proof of dispatch including the Registered Post tracking number 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.
8. The Commission further notes that information has been provided to the appellant on point no. 1 of the RTI application. However, with regard to point no. 2 of the RTI application, the respondent informed that no statements of Smt. Amita Dev, Smt. Neeru Mehta and Smt. Tarika regarding the complaint were recorded. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that no statements of Smt. Amita Dev, Smt. Neeru Mehta and Smt. Tarika regarding the complaint were recorded by the respondent authority Page 3 of 5 as on the date of CPIO's reply. Hence, no information could be provided to the appellant on point no. 2 of the RTI application. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. 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 14.03.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Delhi Police, MSO Building, Police HQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West District, Delhi Police, Sector 19, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, Delhi Police, Police Station, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi- 110027.
4. Mohd. Shakeel Saifi Page 5 of 5