Central Information Commission
Renu Bala Mittal vs Delhi Police on 15 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/2021/609460
Ms. Renu Bala Mittal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 14.07.2022
Date of Decision : 15.07.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.12.2020
PIO replied on : 20.01.2021
First Appeal filed on : 09.02.2021
First Appellate Order on : 10.03.2021
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 15.03.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 26.12.2020 seeking information on the following:-
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, Shahdara District, vide letter dated 20.01.2021 replied as under:-Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the response receivedfrom from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.02.2021.. The FAA FAA/DCP, Shahdara District, vide order dated 10.03.2021 stated as under:
under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant remained absent and has not communicated any reason for her h absence despite service of hearing notice in advance. The Respondent represented by Shri Vijay, ACP, Shahdara District, Shri Mukesh Gupta, Head Constable, RTI Ce Cell, Shahdara District, Shri Sanjiv iv Verma, SHO Shahdara participated in the hearing through video conferencing. They submitted that the order of FAA dated 10.03.2021 has been complied with and fresh reply has been furnished to the Appellant on 11.03.2021 11.03.2021.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and submission made by both parties, the Commission is of the considered view that thatinformation information from available official records as defined under der Section 2(f) of the RTI Act Act,, has been duly provided to the Appellant,, in terms of provisions of the Act. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case despite service of hearing notice. Hence Hence, the cause of dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the information provided cannot be ascertained. However, as regard to contention of the Appellant that the FAA passed an order ex-parteparte without giving opportunity of fair fair-hearing hearing to the Appellant, the issue involved is no more res-integra and it is settled principle of law that denial of fairir hearing to the parties is a violation of the principles of natural justice. A reference can be made to judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar Vs State of Maharashtra Civil Appeal No. 9095/2012, dated 13.12.2012, wherein it was held as under:
" Thus the principle is clear and settled that right of hearing, even if not provided under a specific statue, the principles of natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded. It is more so when exercise of authority is likely to ve vest st the person withh consequences of civil nature."
The FAA is therefore, directed to ensure that fair opportunity of hearing is given to parties while deciding Appeals in future future.
In the given circumstances, since the information stands disseminated, no cause of action subsists under the RTI Act.
Page 2 of 3With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3