Central Information Commission
Hema Dsouza vs Delhi Police on 16 August, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/633376
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/635681
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/637801
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/637800
Ms. Hema D'Souza ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,Asst. Com. Of Police, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police, O/o the ACP, Section - IV,
Mandir Marg, Delhi - 110001
PIO,Delhi Police, O/o the ACP/PIO,
EOW, PS Mandir Marg Complex, Delhi - 110001
Through: Sh. Vinod Gandhi - Inspector
Date of Hearing : 13.08.2020
Date of Decision : 14.08.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO First FAO's Complaint/SA
Nos. on reply's Appeals dated
633376 25.06.2018 24.07.2018 25.07.2018 24.08.2018 07.09.2018
635681 14.08.2018 13.09.2018 24.09.2018 23.10.2018 19.11.2018
637801 11.10.2018 15.11.2018 19.11.2018 17.12.2018 31.12.2018
637800 21.08.2018 26.09.2018 11.10.2018 06.11.2018 31.12.2018
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/633376
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant has provided a brief background of the appeals stating that these cases arise out of the appellant's FIR with respect to the forging of the Appellant's NOC affidavit and will of her deceased father. The FIR was finally transferred to Crime Branch-EOW, for further investigation and a charge sheet Page 1 of 6 was filed by EOW on 30.06.2008 in the Court of Ld. ACMM, NW, Rohini Courts. During the pendency of the trial, the main accused - Smt. Kamlesh passed away on 07.12.2014 and case was abated on 16.04.2015. A probate case filed by the main accused was dismissed and a decision pronounced by the Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Addl. DJ, Tis Hazari Court in favour of the Appellant on 24.01.2017. Based on the decision of the Court, the Appellant made a fresh representation on 30.03.2018 before the EOW for further investigation which was declined by the EOW. It is in this context that the Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.06.2018 seeking information on thirteen points regarding the investigation of fabrication of will of Late Sh. Amrit Lal Mehta and her email dated 29.05.2018 sent to the Commissioner of Police. The information sought by the Appellant is as under:-
1. Please provide standard operating procedure (SOP) in handling above complaint /conducting vigilance enquiry.
2. Please provide names and designations of all personnel/officers who have dealt with the complaint.
3. Please provide dates and duration, when the complaint was handled by each personnel / officer.
4. Please provide action/observations/notations/directions, decision(s) etc., by each personnel / officer, who has handled the e-mail.
5. Please provide time period taken for completing vigilance enquiry/resolving the complaint and arriving at a logical conclusion w.r.t., above complaint.
6. Please provide reasons for not concluding the enquiry/resolving the complaint within time period as specified in response to query 5.
7. Please provide outcome/result/conclusion/action, etc., (and any other such synonym) taken w.r.t., above captioned e-mail.
8. Please provide copy of action taken report / vigilance report / final resolution / complaint redressal report.
9. Please provide reasons in detail for keeping the complaint, 'under Consideration' or abeyance or any other synonym or remotely related synonym or phrase;' by EOW / Vigilance, if applicable. Etc. The PIO/ACP, EOW furnished a point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 24.07.2018.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.07.2018. The FAA vide order dated 24.08.2018 observed that the information has been furnished, upheld the reply of the PIO and disposed off the first appeal.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/635681 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.08.2018 seeking information on thirteen points regarding her email dated 28.05.2018 about investigation of fabrication of will of Late Sh. Amrit Lal Mehta and email dated 14.08.2018 about Page 2 of 6 enquiry into no action by EOW in further investigation of FIR 1016/04. The information sought by the Appellant is as under:-
1. Please provide standard operating procedure (SOP) in handling above complaint/ conducting vigilance enquiry by Vigilance department.
2. Please provide names and designations of all personnel/officers, who have dealt with the complaint.
3. Please provide dates and duration, when the complaint was handled by each personnel /officer.
4. Please provide action/observations/notations/directions, decision(s) etc., by each personnel /officer, who has handled the e-mail / vigilance enquiry.
5. Please provide time period taken for completing vigilance enquiry / resolving the complaint and arriving at a logical conclusion w.r.t., above complaint.
6. Please provide reasons for not concluding the enquiry / resolving the complaint within time period as specified in response to query 5, if applicable.
7. Please provide complete and unambiguous outcome / result / conclusion / action, etc., (and any other such synonym) taken w.r.t., above captioned email.
8. Please provide specific reasons for not taking action against EOW, for keeping complaint in abeyance despite complainant meeting Shr. P. K. Mishra, DCP EOW, twice and not further investigating the case on receipt of fresh evidence as mandated u/s 173 (8) CrPC.
9. Please provide copy of action taken report/vigilance report/final resolution / complaint redressal report by Vigilance.Etc. The PIO/ACP, EOW, Delhi furnished a point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 13.09.2018.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 23.10.2018 observed that the information has been furnished, upheld the reply of PIO and disposed off the first appeal.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/637800 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2018 seeking information regarding her CCTNS Complaint dated 20.06.2018 on nine points, as follows:-
1. Please provide names and designations of all personnel/officers who have dealt with the complaint.
2. Please provide dates and duration, when the complaint was handled by each personnel /officer.
3. Please provide action /observations/notations/directions, decision(s) etc., by each personnel /officer, who has handled the complaint.
4. Please provide time period taken for completing enquiry and arriving at a conclusion w.r.t., above complaint.
5. Please provide specific facts/points/evidence, on the grounds which the complaint was 'substantiated' as is the status on CCTNS.Page 3 of 6
6. Please provide outcome/result/conclusion/action taken w.r.t., above captioned complaint.
7. Please provide copy of action taken report on which the complaint was found 'substantiated. Etc. The PIO/ACP, EOW, Delhi - Sh. M S Shekhawat replied to the appellant vide letter dated 26.09.2018 stating that the said CCTNS Complaint dated 20.06.2018 had not been received in EOW, hence the reply is NIL.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.10.2018. The FAA vide order dated 06.11.2018 noted that records of CCTNS revealed that the complaint in question was not found. Further, perusal of a subsequent RTI application dated 15.10.2018 filed by the Appellant along with a copy of a screen shot of the CCTNS portal, revealed that the complaint had been received on CMTS portal, not on CCTNS portal and diarized as Dy. No. 3709/18 dated 21.06.2018 and sent to Section-IV/EOW. In these circumstances, the FAA directed the PIO/Sec-IV/EOW to provide the requisite information sought in the RTI application no. A-504/RTI/EOW, dated 28.08.2018 and A-596/RTI/EOW, dated 15.10.2018 directly to the appellant within 10 days of this order.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by denial of information by the Respondent, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/637801 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 11.10.2018 seeking information regarding her CCTNS Complaint dated 20.06.2018 on nine points, as follows:-
1. Please provide names and designations of all personnel/officers who have dealt with the complaint.
2. Please provide dates and duration, when the complaint was handled by each personnel/officer.
3. Please provide action/observations/notations/directions, decision(s) etc., by each personnel /officer, who has handled the complaint.
4. Please provide time period taken for completing enquiry and arriving at a conclusion w.r.t., above complaint.
5. Please provide specific facts/points/evidence, on the grounds which the complaint was 'substantiated' as is the status on CCTNS.
6. Please provide outcome/result/conclusion/action taken w.r.t., above captioned complaint.
7. Please provide copy of action taken report on which the complaint was found 'substantiated.' Etc. The PIO/ACP, EOW- Sh. K Ramesh, Delhi furnished a point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 15.11.2018.Page 4 of 6
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2018, the FAA vide order dated 17.12.2018 held as follows:
"..The information/reply provided by PIO/Sec-IV/EOW is correct in compliance of order no 817-19/RTI Cell/EOW dated, New Delhi on 06.11.2018. However the copy of reply of PIO/Sec-IV/EOW is enclosed.
As no ambiguity is found/surfaced in the reply provided by PIO/Sec- IV/EOW to the Appellant, therefore, the decision of PIO/Sec-IV/EOW does not need to be interfered with."
Aggrieved with the information received, the Appellant has approached this Commission with the instant second appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
The appellant is represented by her husband who informed the Bench that the property in question is in their possession after the decision of the Court in the probate case, mentioned above. The Court had rejected the forged will submitted by Smt. Kamlesh and decided the matter in favour of the appellant. Currently, the process of partition is underway dividing the property between the appellant and her brother. The appellant's representative alleges that the corruption and connivance of the public authorities resulted in the appellant facing multiple litigation, for no reasonable cause and for no fault of hers. Hence, after the resolution of the litigation, they now seek information so that fresh investigation of the matter is undertaken.
The respondent has pointed out that the appellant had earlier filed two cases seeking similar information pertaining to the same subject matter. The second appeals, CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/625937 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/626022, had been adjudicated by another bench of this Commission during a hearing held on 22.11.2019 and orders dated 26.11.2019 were passed, with the following observation:
"...The Commission further observes that the inspection of records have also been provided to the appellant by the respondent (EOW), and no further information remains to be provided. Thus, due information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent (EOW). In view of this, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."Page 5 of 6
Decision After detailed examination of the facts of the case, gathered from perusal of records and arguments of the parties, it is noted that appellant has mentioned that she is dissatisfied with the information provided by the respondent. However, she has not clearly established the cause of her dissatisfaction in her Second Appeal nor has she placed any arguments during the course of hearing clarifying the exact information which has been denied to her. At this juncture, the decision passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Hansi Rawat vs. PNB &Ors. [dated 11.01.2013] is found relevant, holding as follows:
"...6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.."
Furthermore, it is noted from the earlier decisions of this Commission referred to above, that inspection of relevant records have already been provided to her. In the light of the above discussion, since information as available on record appears to have been provided to the appellant, the Commission is unable to find any surviving cause of action which can be adjudicated under the RTI Act.
The above appeals are thus disposed off with no further directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6