Central Information Commission
Shri S.C. Sharma vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (East) on 26 December, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01056 dated 14-11-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri S.C. Sharma
Respondent: Dy. Commissioner of Police (East)
FACTS
By an application of 1-3-07 Shri S.C. Sharma, Advocate of Patiala House Court, New Delhi applied to the Commissioner of Police, Police Hqrs. seeking the following information:
"A. What is the present status of the complaint against the SHO, Krishna Nagar, and the Superdar Shri Harbans Mehta and whether this matter has been closed and if so what is the outcome of the enquiry.
B. That this matter is also pending in the court of M. M. Dr. Archna Sinha, Karkardooma Court and the summons were issued against the Superdar, Harbans Mehta through SHO, Krishna Nagar, by M.M. for the last two years, however SHO Krishna Nagar has failed to produce the Superdar, Harbans Mehta as the "Summons Cells"
failed to sent the summons to SHO Krishna Nagar. These Summonses were sent by the Naib Court attached to the court of Dr. Archna Sinha, M. M. Karkardooma Court.
C. Whether it is a fact that this matter was widely reported in various newspapers particularly in Times of India East Delhi Plus dated 28.8.2001, Copy enclosed as Annexure- E and if so what is the status of investigation in this matter by the Vigilance Department.
D. What is the procedure for sending summons through "Summons Cell" of Delhi Police, in East Delhi and whether any enquiry has been conducted as to how the summons could not be served on the Superdar through SHO Krishna Nagar, through Summons Cell?"
To this he received a response from DCP (East) on 13-4-2007, who received the application on 15-3-07, as follows:-
"B. The case FIR No. 235/95 u/s 379/304A IPC, PS Krishna Nagar is pending trial in the court of Smt. Dr. Archana Singh, MM, Karkardooma Courts. During the last two years from 25.10.04 to 12.12.06, five Summons/ Bailable 1 Warrants have been issued from the concerned court against Harbans Lal Mehta (Superdar) and other public witnesses. The detail of summons/ bailable warrants is as under:-
(i) For 18.2.05 summon was issued to execute through IO and was not served as the IO HC Swarn Singh has died.
(ii) For 4.06.058 summon was issued to execute
through SHO. The same was sent to PS
Shakarpur as the address of the superdar falls in the jurisdiction of PS Shakarpur and was not got served, as the address given as incorrect.
(iii) For 12.8.05 bailable warrant was issued to execute through IO and was not got served due to incorrect address.
(iv) For 14.12.05 Summon was issued to execute through summon cell but was not got served due to incorrect address.
(v) For 8.5.06 summon was issued to execute through summon cell but was not got served due to incorrect address.
(vi) For 16.5.07 Summon was issued to execute through SHO but has not been served due to incorrect address.
Further, SHO/ Krishna Nagar has not received any summon to get it served on Harbans Lal Mehta.
D. The summonses received in the Summons Cell/ East Distt are marked to process Servers. The Process Server then gets it executed and gives his report thereon which is then sent to the concerned court. The summons that are marked to SHO are executed by the concerned SHO himself."
Not satisfied with this response, however, Shri S.C. Sharma moved his first appeal 3-5-07 with the following plea:
"Incomplete and misleading and the complete information has not been furnished in respect of action taken against SHO, Krishna Nagar for release of uninsured vehicle involved in the fatal accident."
He also contended that no information has been supplied in respect of letter sent by Addl. Session Judge to DCP (East). This appeal was examined 2 by Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Jt. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range who came to the following conclusion:
"Having examined the material available on file, it is found that the PIO/ East District vide letter No. 1465/ Info. Cell/ East District dated 8.5.2007 has subsequently informed the appellant that no information is available on above mentioned two points as the record pertaining to complaint of 2001 has already been destroyed in the year 2005. However, I am forwarding copy of complaint dated 20.6.01 of DCP/ Vigilance (PIO/Vig.) for furnishing information available in her office."
Appellant's prayer before us in 2nd appeal is as below:-
"The appellant hereby submits the present appeal and to request that an early hearing may be fixed in the above matter."
He also referred to an order by Smt. Mamta Sehgal, Addl. Session Judge and Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, a copy of which was enclosed and which the learned judge has come to the following conclusion:
"I have perused the appeal, heard the appellant in person and in view of the above discussion, there is no information left to be supplied to appellant. Hence, information required by him cannot be supplied. Hence, applicant is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be given to the appellant free of cost. File be consigned to the Record room."
The appeal was heard on 26-12-08. The following are present.
Appellant.
Shri S.C. Sharma Respondents Shri Sushil Kumar, Inspector, Addl. SHO, Krishna Nagar. Shri R. S. Chauhan, ACP/ Division (East).
In view of the response given to his application appellant Shri S.C. Sharma was asked what further information in light of the order of 1st Appellate Authority on the destruction of records, was now sought by him. He submitted that the information given by the CPIO was misleading in that the summons served were, in fact, sent to the correct address but yet not served on the owner of Mehta Enterprises. He submitted a copy of the statement made before the MM by the same party in which he has given the same address. He also submitted that although he has received a letter of 21-6-07 from Ms. Shalini Singh, PIO, Vigilance that no enquiry was conducted in this 3 office on his complaint by Inspector Shri Chaudhry in the year 2001, he contended that such an enquiry was conducted as reported in the court.
DECISION NOTICE Having heard the parties and examined the records we find that the information sought by appellant Shri Sharma has, in fact, been provided to him in the very first instance by the PIO concerned. In his appeals both first and second he sought further information as is also apparent from his arguments before us. If, however, he suspects that the summons could have been served and were not served on grounds of bribery and corruption it is open to him to make a complaint accordingly before the authorised officer of the Delhi Police. Such a complaint cannot constitute a request for information since the information is quite clearly that the summons has not been served. Similarly, as clarified by Shri R.S. Chauhan, ACP (East Division) that so far as the Vigilance is concerned no such enquiry was conducted. If such enquiry was conducted by some other Division appellant Shri Sharma has already been provided with the results of that enquiry which answers point (a) of his application.
The responses to the questions asked have now been received by appellant. This appeal is therefore now unsustainable. If he has further complaints on the manner of disposal of his complaints before the Police, this Commission is not the appropriate authority to entertain the same and he may make the complaint to the appropriate authority in the Delhi Police or before the Addl. Session Court as the case may be.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 26-12-2008 4 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 26-12-2008 5