Central Information Commission
Shyam Sundar Singh vs Delhi Police on 12 January, 2022
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/101462
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/110527
Shri Shyam Sunder Singh ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
द्विकायतकताा /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2022
Date of Decision : 12.01.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
101462 21.10.2019 19.11.2019 25.11.2019 31.12.2019 09.01.2020
110527 13.11.2019 04.01.2020 17.01.2020 18.02.2020 04.03.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/101462 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2019 seeking information regarding the reason why his complaint was not registered as a FIR, etc. THe PIO, South District, New Delhi, vide letter dated 19.11.2019 replied as under:-
Page 1 of 4Dissatisfied with the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.11.2019. The FAA, South District, Hauz Khas, vide order dated 31.12.2019 stated as under:-
Feeling aggrieved over non receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that his grievance pertaining to registration of his FIR by Ambedkar Nagar PS was not redressed till date. Explaining the background of the matter, the Appellant alleged that Shri Ashok Kumar along with his wife r/o 228, RPS Colony, Madangir had fraudulently executed a will, GPA, agreement to sell, etc on behalf of his father Shri Kanhaiya Lal, the owner of H II- 152, Madangir against which he had filed a complaint which was not registered as FIR by SHO, PS Ambedkar Nagar. Hence, he had filed the instant RTI application seeking information in this matter.
The Respondent represented by Shri Mahesh Kumar Moga, SHO and Inspector, Ambedkar Nagar PS participated in the hearing through audio conference. He reiterated the replies provided to the Appellant and stated that his queries revolved around seeking opinion/ explanation/ response to hypothetical queries which falls beyond the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In addition, he stated that investigation on the FIR which has now been registered based on the direction of the Saket court is still continuing and that the Appellant did not seek any specific documents with respect to the investigation of the FIR.
Decision Page 2 of 4 Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/110527 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated13.11.2019 seeking information regarding the permission granted regarding operating Gramin Seva Tempo from Nehru Place to Madangir.
The CPIO, Traffic, New Delhi, vide letter dated 04.01.2020 replied to as under:-
Dissatisfied with the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.01.2020. The FAA/Deputy Secretary, vide order dated 18.02.2020upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved over non receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that satisfactory information as per the provisions of the RTI Act was not provided by the Respondent.
The Respondent represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Inspector, O/o Addl DCP (Traffic), Delhi Police, Traffic (S Circle) participated in the hearing through audio conference. He could not respond to the Appellant's contentions due to connectivity issues. However, subsequent to the hearing, he forwarded a copy of a note sheet dated 18.11.2020 sent by the Traffic Inspector, Kalkaji Circle to ACP/T/SE District wherein it was mentioned that a complaint against vehicle no DL 2W 1727 (Gramin Sewa) was received in the office of the Kalkaji Traffic Circle on 12.10.2020. As per the report of the ZO, the vehicle had been impounded in at the Savita Vihar Circle vide challan u/s 146/196 MV Act (without valid permit) on 30.08.2020. the above said Gramin Sewa was deposited by ASI Premraj No 650/T at Sangam Vihar Traffic Circle Pit vide DD No 18/SGV dated 30.08.2020. The above mentioned vehicle is still lying in Sangam Vihar Pit located in front of MTNL office, Nehru Place. Hence, no more action is required from their circle. In the note it was also mentioned that the Appellant had received the inquiry report from the Kalkaji Circle on 29.10.2020.Page 3 of 4
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that information available with the public authority has been provided. Therefore, there is no further intervention required by the Commission With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4