Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sukhdev Singh vs Delhi Police on 7 July, 2022

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली,
                             ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/107588

Shri Sukhdev Singh                                           ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO/ADCP, Delhi Police, Licensing Branch                ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Dr. G S Sidhu - DCP, Licensing;
ASI Lal Bahadur and HC Kapil

Date of Hearing                      :    06.07.2022
Date of Decision                     :    07.07.2022
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :    25.08.2020
PIO replied on                        :    30.09.2020
First Appeal filed on                 :    30.09.2020
First Appellate Order on              :    04.11.2020
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :    18.02.2021

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.08.2020 seeking information on the following point:-

The PIO/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Licensing Unit, vide letter dated 30.09.2020 replied as under:-

Meanwhile on not receiving any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.09.2020. The FAA/Jt. Commissioner of Police, Licensing Unit vide order dated 04.11.2020 held as under:-

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the virtual hearing, while the Appellant has not attended the hearing nor communicated any reason for his absence despite service of hearing notice in advance. The Respondent averred that not satisfied with the aforementioned replies furnished by the PIO and the FAA, the Appellant had filed an application dated 24.09.2021 for cancellation of his license. The application was allowed and the arms license of the Appellant was cancelled on the basis of his application. Copies of relevant documents have been placed on record by the Respondent during the course of the day.

Decision:

In view of the aforementioned submission of the Respondent, no further action is deemed necessary in this case.

The instant appeal is disposed off as such.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2