Central Information Commission
Mr.Lalit Dixit vs Delhi Police on 9 January, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/SS/A/2013/000822/VS/05895
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2013/000822/VS
Dated: 22.01.2014
Appellant: Shri Lalit Dikshit,
R/o H.No.A2, Type 2, P.S. Madhu Vihar,
Mandawali, Delhi110 092.
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
Addl. DCP, Delhi Police (Crime),
2nd Flr., POolice Station Kamla Market
Office Complex, Delhi.
Date of Hearing: 09.01.2014
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 27.11.2012 seeking information pertaining to railway journeys performed against certain railway warrants.
2. The CPIO responded on 03.01.2013 and provided pointwise information to the appellant. The appellant filed his first appeal on 28.12.2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 18.01.2013 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 24.01.2013 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The respondent participated in the hearing personally.
4. The respondent referred to the RTI application of 27.11.2012 and stated that the appellant is police personnel who had been placed under suspension following which departmental action was launched against him after his transfer to a nonsensitive post. It was explained that the appellant was earlier part of the police team conducting an investigation but had to be removed from that team on account of a feeling that his conduct was unbecoming of a personnel involved in the investigation. The respondent stated that the appellant was seeking information about the travel documents of those who have travelled for the investigation and the documents sought including the railway warrants and DD entries.
5. The respondent stated that the information pertaining to the police personnel has been given by the CPIO on 03.01.2013 to the appellant. But, the entries pertinent to the non police passenger had not been given on grounds of protecting the identity of those persons who were helping the police in the investigation. The respondent stated that the denial of this information was confined only to those who were not police personnel and the prime consideration was to protect the identity of those persons to prevent any harm.
6. The respondent reiterated that whatever information was available has been given.
7.The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
Decision:
8. The order of the first appellate authority is upheld and no further action of the Commission is required.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer