Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sudhanshu Gautam vs Delhi Police on 14 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/2021/114721

Shri Sudhanshu Gautam                                        ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                    ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police

Date of Hearing                      :    12.07.2022
Date of Decision                     :    14.07.2022
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   09.10.2020
PIO replied on                        :   09.12.2020
First Appeal filed on                 :   05.01.2021
First Appellate Order on              :   19.01.2021
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   05.04.2021

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.10.2020 seeking information on the following:-

ETC.

The CPIO/Addl. DCP, Police Special Cell Women and Child, Malviya Nagar, vide letter dated 09.12.2020 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response receivedfrom the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2021. The FAA/Joint Commissioner,Police Special Cell Women and Child, Malviya Nagar, vide order dated 19.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from PIO/ Assistant Commissioner of Police/SPUWAC, Nanakpura, vide letter dated 01.07.2022, stating that information sought by the Appellant has been duly provided to him. Furthermore, the reply of Respondent has been upheld by the FAA. The charge-sheet of the case has already been put in court room no. 313, Dwarka, New Delhi on 25.11.2020 and the case is under trial.

The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing. He submitted that he had raised ten queries in his RTI application but the Respondent denied the information under section 8 (1)(h) of RTI Act. He submitted that the FAA blatantly violated the RTI Act and concurred with the CPIO's response. Moreover, the provisions of RTI Act have been misconstrued andhe has been wrongly denied the information. The complaint was filed by his wife on 26.02.2018 and he got the bail on 04.04.2018.He submitted that the notice under section 41A CrPc should have been issued to him within fifteen days but the same was received by him on 05.04.2018. The Respondent has misconstrued the facts and wrongly mentioned in their reply that the notice under section 41 A was issued within fifteen days. He submitted that a certified copy of the FIR was not given. In addition, he had sought panchnama of the articles which were construed as stridhan but the Respondent provided a list of articles without the stamp of concerned police station.Thus, he insisted upon imposition of penalty on the concerned officials.During the hearing he also apprised the Commission that notice for hearing from Dwarka Court has not been received by him The Respondent represented by Ms. Indu Bala, PIO/ACP, SPUWAC, Nanakpura and Ms. Monika, Sub-Inspector, participated in the hearing through video conferencing. Ms. Bala apprised the Commission that charge-sheet of the case has already been filed in the Dwarka court and the next date of hearing is 14.07.2022. She submitted that notice has been served upon the Appellant with respect to the aforementioned case and she is not aware as to how he has not receivedit till date. Furthermore, the information as sought by the Appellant was denied under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act since it was pending investigation.

Decision:

Perusal of record and submission made by both parties reveal that the information as sought by the Appellant has been denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1) (h)of the RTI Act on the pretext of pending investigation. The blanket Page 3 of 4 denial of information on the pretext of pending investigation is unjustified and incorrect.The scheme of the RTI Act, its object and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosurean exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold the information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 of RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1) (h), which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the information to the Appellant, it will have to be shown by the Respondent that the information sought would impede the process of investigation. The respondent is therefore, cautioned to ensure that a reasoned response is provided in reply to RTI applications in future. Since the charge-sheet has been filed before the Dwarka Court and the next date of hearing is 14.07.2022, no further intervention of the Commission is required at this stage.

With the above observations, 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 4 of 4