Central Information Commission
Mrs.Renu Mahendirata vs Delhi Police on 24 June, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003571
June 24, 2013
Appellant : Mrs. Renu Mahendirata
Respondents : Delhi Police (Outer District)
Date of Hearing : 24.06.2013
ORDER
The present appeal filed by Mrs. Renu Mahendirata against Delhi Police, Outer District, New Delhi was taken up for hearing on 24.06.2013 when the Respondents were present through Shri Suresh Chander, APIO, Shri Raj Kumar, SHO/North District and Shri Chandra Shekhar. The Appellant was present in person. Facts of the case:
2. The Appellant filed her RTI application dated 25.04.2012 with the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, New Delhi wherein she listed out 25 letters/complaints of her written to the Commissioner of Police and stated that police have failed to take action on her said letters/complaints. She accordingly sought to know the action taken on said letters/complaints.
CIC/SS/A/2012/003571 Page 1 of 5 2
3. The CPIO, Police Headquarters vide his letter dated 25.05.2012 informed the Appellant that her letters/complaints at Sl Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20 and 25 had been sent to DCP, Outer District. He also indicated the details of communications by which the Appellant's letter were sent to DCP (Outer District). As for the remaining letters/complaints, the CPIO told the Appellant that the same had not been received in the Police Headquarters.
4. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, filed an appeal dated 01.06.2012 before the Appellate Authority which the Appellate Authority decided vide his order dated 04.07.2012 directing the CPIO to provide the movement of various complaints mentioned by the Appellant in the appeal as also transfer the request & appeal of the Appellant to the CPIO, Outer District and the CPIO, Vigilance Branch u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act so that they can provide action taken report on said complaints to the Appellant directly.
5. The Appellant thereafter received replies from the CPIO, Outer District, but, on not being satisfied with the same, she filed the present appeal before the Commission. Decision:
6. During the hearing, the Appellant submits that she has altogether filed 51 complaints with the Commissioner of Police against her neighbors, Shri Sangeet Pal Singh and Shri Harpal Singh for "harassment and molestation" and that all these complaints were transferred to the Joint Commissioner of Police (North), who, in turn, forwarded them to the DCP, Outer District, from where they (complaints) were further marked to the concerned ACP & SHO for action. However, no action was taken by the them. They, instead, made a false case against her son in connivance with Shri Sangeet Pal Singh and Shri Harpal Singh and registered a "fake and fraudulent" FIR against her 2 son. The Appellant, in support of her claim, produces a copy of vigilance report on the instant matter wherein the Vigilance Branch of the Outer District of Delhi Police has, interalia, concluded that "....inaction on PCR call dated 19.04.2012..... shows the lack of supervision and twisting of the facts by SHO North Rohini. It is the liability of SHO that complainant should be entertained and satisfied with Police action, but in the present case SHO, North Rohini has twisted the facts and took no legal action in time which is unjustified."
7. The Respondents submit that FIR No. 137 had been lodged against Shri Sangeet Pal Singh and Shri Harpal Singh. However, on the same day a counter FIR No. 136 had also been registered against the Appellant's son. They inform that charge sheets have also been filed in the court and the matter is currently under consideration of the court.
8. On consideration of the submission of the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission, while observing that complete and factual information has not been provided to the Appellant in the present case, remands this mater back to the Appellate Authority with a direction to pass a speaking order in the matter and provide to the Appellant complete action taken on all her complaints as well as on the enquiry report (mentioned hereinabove) submitted by the Vigilance branch. He should also examine the allegations leveled by the Appellant in the instant case and provide an appropriate reply to her.
9. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions, which are to be complied with within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
CIC/SS/A/2012/003571 Page 3 of 5 4 (Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated by (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar 4 Address to the parties:
1. Mrs. Renu Mahendirata 176, C7, Sector 8, Rohini Delhi 110085
2. The Central Public Information Officer & Add. Deputy Commissioner of Police Delhi Police, Outer District Pushpanjali Road No. 43 Delhi 34
3. The Appellate Authority/ Deputy Commissioner of Police Delhi Police, Outer District Pushpanjali Road No. 43 Delhi 34 CIC/SS/A/2012/003571 Page 5 of 5