Central Information Commission
Shri Ajit Kar vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police (Dcp) Sw on 30 April, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001128, 973, 906 & 1406 dated 18-11-2007; 24-9-07; 21-08-07 &
5-11-07
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Ajit Kar
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) SW
FACTS
These are four appeals moved by Shri Ajit Kar of Satya Niketan against the PIO, & DCP (South West) New Delhi File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/1128 By this application carrying 31 questions Shri Ajit Kar sought information concerning DD No. 22A of 8-3-2005 registered at Nanakpura PP, PS R.K. Puram. To this he received a point-wise reply on 29-6-07 from DCP, SW as follows:
"1. The requisite information at this point, the copies of DD entries have already been provided to you vide this office memo No. 1767/DIC/SWD, dated 2.6.2007.
2. Same as point no. 1.
3. It does not relate to PP Nanakpura.
4. HC Harphool belongs to Rajasthan Distt. His official address is V&PO Baharka Kalan, Distt Rajgarh, Rajasthan. Ct. Rishi Kumar belongs to Bihar Distt. His official address is Aura Via Meena, Triveni Sitamadhi, Bihar.
5. DD No. A and B are maintained at Police Station level but not at Police Post.
6. The DD No. 23 dated 6.10.04 have already been provided to you vide this office memo No. 1767/DIC/SWD, dated
2.6.2007.
7. You have not mentioned the date and year of the requisite DD entries.
8. As same mentioned at Sl. No.
9. List is enclosed.
10. List is enclosed.
11. The subordinates are given according the requirement and workload of that office/ area.
12. Same as point no, 11.
13. the police is working as per law.
14. In this regard you consult the law books readily available in the market.
15. Same as point No. 14.
116. You have already been informed vide this office memo No. 1769/DIC/SWD dated 2.6.2007 dated 2.6.2007, at point no. 3.
17. The arrest memo is enclosed with the case file, which is pending trial, and the requisite information is with that memo.
18. No such illegal arrest was made. However, it is not possible to keep such record.
19. The requisite police officials were not posted at PP Nanakpura on 8.3.2007.
20. The IO concerned is responsible to give such information.
21. The requisite information is not clear. The date and place are required to be mentioned.
22. All norms set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding arrest of a person, are followed.
23. You should have approached the Hon'ble Court, if there were some shortcoming in following the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
24. You have already been informed about record, vide this office memo No. 1767/DIC/SWD, dated 2.6.2007 at point No. 11.
25. You may get this information from Delhi Police Website available at net.
26. Regular internal orientation courses are being organized for all ranks officers. However, it is policy matter and details of the courses are conducted is with PHQ.
27. You have been informed several times in response of your earlier applications under that the case was finalized by the Crime Branch and the same is pending trial.
28. The case was transferred to Crime Branch.
29. You may have this information from law books readily available in the market.
30. No such record is kept or available at Police Stations of this Distt.
31. You have been informed several times in response of your earlier applications under RTI that the case was finalized by the Crime Branch and the same is pending trial.
32. Need no comments being a matter of record of depositing the fee under RTI.
33. Public Information Officer is responsible under RTI Act.
34. The same have been sent vide dated 2.6.2007."
Not satisfied Shri Kar moved his first appeal before the JCP (Southern Range) Police Hqrs. pleading as follows:
"The PIO has not replied all sub points wanted to be replied hence relevancy of his claim may kindly be called upon to be provide or give information as requested."2
On this basis he challenged all answers. Upon this by his order of 3-8- 07 Shri Rajesh Kumar, JCP, SR re-examined all the questions and upheld the answers given to question Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 (i), 11 to 18, 20-23, 25-34 and
24. On the other hand he directed that the answers be given to question Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 10 (ii) and 19. A compliance report was also sent to appellant by DCP, SW on 6-9-07. However, Shri Kar then moved his second appeal before us on 25-9-07 with the following prayer:
"1. The respondent may be ordered to cause it to be reply all the questions is satisfaction of the appellant as per law which the PIO has refused or the respondent has ignored without meticulously going through the same as per the points specifically given in this appeal.
2. That the commission may order for suitable cost to be paid to the appellant."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/906 In this case appellant in his application of 15-1-07 asked 40 questions. To this he received a response on 12-2-07 from DCP, SW as follows:
"The relevant information in this regard has already been provided to you by this office in reference the orders of Hon'ble CIC vide No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00449, 467 and 468 dated 9.1.2007. No further information is require to be provided at this stage as the case FIR No. 137/05 has been sent to court for trial. The rest of information pertains to various offices, hence the copy of your application has already been forwarded to concerned offices as per provisions of section 6 (3) of Right to Information Act."
Not satisfied, appellant moved his first appeal before JCP, SR on 29-3- 07 to which Shri Rajesh Kumar, JCP, SR gave an exhaustive reply dated 19- 4-07 as follows:
"The undersigned has also examined the reply of the PIO/DCP/SWD issued vide memo No. 390/DIC/SWD, dated 12.2.2007 and found that the PIO/DCP/SW has sent omnibus general reply to the appellant instead of providing information on the points which were concerned to the South West Distt.
Regarding refusal in giving reply, mentioned above at point No.
(i) the undersigned considered all points and reached at the below mentioned decisions:-
Point Nos. 3, The PIO/ DCP/SW is directed to send a fresh 5, 11, 12, 13, reply on each point and provide information to 14, 15, 18, 21, the appellant as admissible under the provisions 3 25 (k) & (m), of the Act. Wherever require the procedure of 27, 31, some section 11 of the Act regarding third party should portion of 32 be adopted.
and 35 Point Nos. 19, Vide these points the appellant wants to know 23, 25, 26, 29, about the preliminary enquiry and motto of 30, 37, 38, 39 enquiry officer, reg function power duties of all and 40 officers of Delhi Police i.e. from Constable to CP Delhi including I/C Police Post, rules, regulations ,instructions, manuals, records, norms, decision making process, categories of documents, formulation and implementation of the policy, monthly remuneration received by officers, system of compensation budget allocated to the Delhi Police agencies, plan proposed for expenditure, detail of the officers who are in quasi judicial position, investigation of the case, reg forensic tests, working/ functioning of agencies, keeping the record, finger prints, duties of police officers/ OI and many other points just to understand the entire system of the Delhi Police. The appellant has also requested for Directory of Delhi Police. There is nothing in these queries that can be called information in terms of Sec 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. There is no obligation to disclose these information under RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the same cannot be disclosed or provided to the appellant.
Regarding point No. (ii), mentioned above a list of Public Information Officers and Appellate Authorities may be given to the appellant.
Regarding point no. (iii), mentioned above the undersigned has found that the compliance of the CIC order dated 9.1.2007 has been done by the PIO/DCP/SW vide memo No. 254/DIC/SWD, dated 31.1.2007. But, the official address of Mr. Gunjan has not been provided to the appellant, as directed by the CIC at Q. 7. n The PIO/DCP/SW is directed to provide the requisite information to the appellant, if not provided so far.
Regarding point no. (iv), mentioned above the appellant may approach to the concerned appellate authority for his grievances.
The PIO/ DCP/SW is, hereby, directed to comply the directions of the undersigned within 40 days from the date of receipt of this order, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.' 4 A compliance report on these orders was made on 2-6-07 but failed to satisfy the appellant Shri Ajit Kar who in his prayer in his second appeal has pleaded as follows:
"The appellant respectfully prays for the following relief in
(i) The points remained unanswered may be ordered to be answered by assigning specific points to relevant PIOs by PIO No. 1.
(ii) Impugned order and denial of information by the Respondents may be ordered to be give under each point 1 to 39 above except points against which no comments is given.
(iii) The PIOs must be directed to give the limitation period right of revision, appeal and along with address of the 1st appellate authority.
(iv) The 1st appellate authority i.e. the respondents may be ordered to give the limitation period, the address of the 2nd appellate authority along with the right to appeal, review in each their order under this RTI Act, 2005.
(v) The cost may warded to the appellant.
(vi) The defaulters may be penalized as per law if found guilty in any manner especially in case of repetition of the same mistake.
(vii) PIO No. 1 being a deliberate mistake maker and refuser of information even after CIC or 1st appellate authority order, on him the 1st appellate authority/ respondent No. 1 may be ordered to keep a vigilance and necessary pecuniary liability may be imparted to him."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/0973 By an application of 12-2-07 Shri Ajit Kar applied for an answer to 23 questions as follows:
"1. The applicant herewith requests to inspect the working and handling of past and present dairy, mode of functioning of the police officers and the recordings of their assignments process of documentation and need to inspect suitable documents at PP Nanakpura, PS R. K. Puram, ACP office Vasant Vihar and that of at DCP South West and necessary notings shall be taken for which concerned officers may be directed to assist him in understanding and getting facts and files and different dates may kindly be suitably fixed for different officers as per the convenience of the applicant for the same and soon may be informed to the applicant.
2. That a copy of the application (original and a photo copy) from the applicant snatched away by Mr. Anant Kumar 5 Gunjan SI the then I/C on 8.3.2005 officially receiving the same with stamp and other relevant impression thereon or if legally it is not acceptable then only give a copy back.
3. Please inform to which state and district Mr. Anant Kumar Gunjan belongs.
4. An application was addressed to SHO, R. K. Puram officially it was received on 29.12.2006 please inform what measure has been taken yet with reason of decision and delay.
5. Please give a request better or permission from the concerned authority of Delhi Police so that the applicant can inspect the MLC record at Safdarjung Hospital he being the complainant in FIR 748/98 PS R. K. Puram and the MLCs were made on 30.9.08 night two for complainant and two concerned IO has manipulated to favour the accused.
6. Please give a copy of the original MLC No. C/138965 patient Mrigank Prabhakar made on 30.9.98 night and that of MLC No. C/138968 Pt. A. Kar and MLC No. C/ 13869 Pt K. Kar made at 4.15 am on 30.9.08 give certified copy of the entire original MLC.
7. Who was the police officer and at what time he ordered for all the above stated MLCs who and when accompanied the patients and when he came back as per police record.
8. Where is Mr. Harish Kumar the then SHO (during September, 1998) R. K. Puram is appointed now, please give his official address along with present rank and if he is retired from the job please give his permanent address.
9. Please give the present official address of the following officers along with their present rank and batch number (if not correctly given down) who were working at PP Nanakpura during September, 1998.
a) Shri Ombir Singh, ASI No.
b) Shri Sambhu Dayal H. C. No. 209.
c) Shri Arun Pal ct No. 1780.
d) Shri Lile Singh ct No. 1014.
e) Ms. Nirmalal Devi wct No. 2113.
f) Shri Omprakash HC No. 338.
10. Please also give an access for inspection of the documentation reporting etc working of the police officers during September, 1998 and other the appropriate officer 6 of Delhi Police to fully cooperate and assist in the inspection noting or translation for proper comprehension of the expressions by the applicant and for taking any certified copy as per demand and feasibility.
11. Please give information on 30.9.08 who reported the matter at about 20.15 AM vide DD No. 21A that lead a cross FIR 747/98 and 748/98 PS R. K. Puram and if the report came from PCR then at what time the information was received by PCR and who was the informer to the PCR and what information was given to PCR again and who were the PCR officers attended the spot of incident and please write the current official address of all these officer as per record and also give all similar information i.e. informer of DD No. 25A at about 20.30 AM 30.9.98 and how the IOs were changed on which date the cross FIRs were assigned to each IO.
12. Can a Police Officer from Crime Branch of Delhi Police officially go to a public prosecutor for opinion over prosecution of a person without first approaching to the DCP legal cell of Delhi Police or any other legal advisory system prevailed in Delhi Police and can a police officer without preliminary investigation file an FIR against a person complained of if so what should be categorically the base of his suspicion and what should be the base of his reasoning and cogitate credibility to lodge FIR or it is his discretion? Please give detail pointwise information along with relevant citation of law and court decision (if possibly you have knowledge) to clarify and substantiate the facts as per law and order used by Delhi Police.
13. How does a Delhi Police officer legally and officially measure the credibility authenticity falsity discredit ability of a complaint prior to lodging an FIR and who is the officer legally responsible in lodging the FIR and who are the authority must be informed of the fact of filing an FIR and whose order is final if an FIR is to be filed by an HC in a police post in Delhi.
14. Please give a copy of the facts submitted by Mr. Pankaj Yadav SI Crime Branch Anti Auto lifting squad, R. K. Puram to the public prosecutor seeking his information on the basis of which he wanted opinion and also give the copy of the opinion given by the public prosecutor in connection with the complaint filed by the applicant and the lodging of challan vide FIR 137/05 PS R. K. Puram.
15. Please give the order of marking of file in descending order up to the enquiry officer of the complaint bearing 7 computer generated complaint number available at police head quarter single window information, please write what were the facts and issues given to the enquiry officer for investigation who were the investigation officer, who was the authority responsible for the decision on the enquiry report, who gave final decision who were the witnesses from all parties and what was the procedure of investigation statement and reasoning and reason behind the decision. Give copy of all deposition, statement, cross examination facts or investigation enquiry report which fact found to be established and which could not be and write individually each issue fact and finding thereon along with, reason of making issues and leaving some issues if any and calling some witnesses leaving others if any computer generated complaint No.
(i) 166/2006/00384 Ref date 25.5.06 (DCP North).
(ii) 645/2005/00127 Ref date 3.6.2005 (DCP Vigilance).
16. That a complaint was given to Jt CP crime on 16.3.06 and again another one was given on 28.3.2007 for which he directed the applicant to meet the Addl. C. P. Crime who was also met and he directed DE or marked it to DCP crime and railway the computer generated complaint Nos. vide various complaint were 164/2006/01876, 164/2006/00983.
164/2006/00756 and 164/2006/00384, the applicant did not know who else on which date the file was marked until through RTI Appeal on CIC order DCP SW gave information that the DE against Mr. Anant Kumar Gunjan SI and Shri Harphool Singh, HC PS R. K. Puram was dropped (dated nil although the computer recorded at single window information, 1st floor, PHQ ITO shows the DE pending disposal) and the reason that the applicant refused to join the cross examination by the delinquent in this regard the applicant request the concerned authority the written proof of the applicant's refusal and the measures taken by the authority to each of the above stated complaint No. as per the computer generation and that of all other application made by the applicant about the harassment and ACP Satyendra Nath's diplomacy to save the delinquent Mr. Gunjan and the following reply the authority is requested to extract from the Rtd ACP Mr. Satyendra Nath, Preet Vihar.
(i) If the applicant gave his statement on 21.6.06 but why immediate cross examination was not made, why Mr. Harphool Singh was not present and why he gave deliberately time for preparation then how it was refusal of the applicant for his cross examination?
8(ii) Why on 22.6.06 even though the date of cross examination was put yet it was abruptly stopped and no telephone call was made to the applicant rather he was made run to Preet Vihar from south Delhi wasn't it a deliberate harassment and hasn't the ACP in his own handwriting given in writing to the applicant on his insistence that the applicant came for cross exami8antion but he himself refused on 22.6.06.
(iii) Wasn't the ACP informed on his notice it self that his notice received at 9.17 PM for cross examination on 6.7.06 but the applicant had a civil court appearance in the court of Shri Vipin Kumar Rai CJ so he requested suitable future date and the notice was brought by Chand Ram Malik ct. PP Nanakpura.
(iv) Wasn't the applicant given only three hours time to appear for the cross examination giving notice at 1 PM on 15.7.06 and wanting appearance at 4 PM at Preet Vihar, is it the way of following of denying principle of natural justice, the applicant even requested in writing on the same notice brought by Ct. Sudhir Kumar that a Monday or Thursday may be given suitably with sufficient time gap so a preoccupied person must arrange other obligation but he never refused wasn't it correct?
(v) Wasn't the final notice given by the ACP again giving only four hours time (noticed received on 19.7.06 from Ct. Anil Kumar P. S. Preet Vihar and needing appearance at 4 PM) despite last written request on 15.7.06, the applicant requested that he was preoccupied up to 7.30 PM from the time of receipt of notice to the time of appearance for the cross examination as a prudent DEO following the principle of natural justice should have done not with standing pre written request was made to him four days back by the applicant, yet the applicant never refused rather most politely the humble applicant requested for a suitable date in this regard even on 24.7.06 a written complaint was made to the Addl. CP crime but why such a raw falsehood has been written, in the report of DE against Mr. Anant Kumar Gunjan and Mr. Harphool Singh, please give copy of facts given for departmental enquiry, copy of statement given by the applicant and that of all other defendants, prosecution witnesses and defendant's witness and the facts which were found to be false as per the findings of the DEO also write specifically what 9 were the charges for DE, what were the issues and which of them specifically found false?
17. In this complaint if the wrong has been made for ACP Preet Vihar then to whom he is questionable now and who will the applicant now approach, to whom he had addressed to his complaint i.e. to Jt CP Crime or Addl. JT CP Crime or who else and what is the reason therefore?
18. What are the main and solid basis of providing a charge in a departmental enquiry how charges are framed, what are the power, qualification, disqualification of a Departmental Enquiry Officer what are the basis of his reasoning, ability of crediting the facts, whether preponderantly probable facts are taken as the base or not and when is he legally allowed to apply his discretion and what is the modus operandi of his function and also inform about the rights and liabilities of the complainant, defendant, witnesses of compliant, other prosecution witnesses and that of the defendant's witnesses.
19. Please inform that the IO of FIR 137/05 PS R. K. Puram has a power even to investigate after the challan is submitted and during this investigation whether the IO only by hook or crook try to establish the false FIR he has made or he will look for the false hood of the complainant also as the main motto of the investigation to find the truth if he finds the reality of giving false complaint by the complainant will be give withdrawal application for quashing the FIR if so who is the authority at the helm to do so if not please inform the reason.
20. Please inform what measure the DCP SW took on receiving complaint of the applicant and from the same marked in descending order of authority from LG, CP and Jt. CP SR enquiry report from Jt. C. P. vigilance office and NHRC regarding the snatching of the complaint of the applicant who was the first informer and not taking into record even though he is quite powerful u/s 154 (3) Cr PC to make persona investigation what measures has he taken on application given to him on 4.3.2006 to CP on 11.11.05 and 7.2.2006 the first information given by the applicant to the PCR has been verified or not and there after whether the complaint of the informant to PCR as arrival of the local police should have been taken on the spot by the police or not, the eye witness should have been investigated or not and if the Police sent by the I/C/ Shri Gunjan SI PP Nanakpura and he himself did not follow the law and refused by action to take the first complaint into record should the DCP have not made relevant investigation as per law in this regard what 10 measures prudentially the DCP has taken place inform with exact date of action and the officers directed by him to function in this regard in relief of the innocent applicant and prosecution of the false compliant of the FIR 137/05 PS R. K. Puram?
21. What are the duty and obligation of an investigation officer discharged mandatorily who has on PCR information gone to the spot on direction of the in charge police post, please inform his duty in connection with oral investigation, MLC recording of complaint, recording of statement lodging the FIR and the modus operandi of investigation and arrest, bail, custodial confinement etc as per law practised in Delhi Police and whether the same were followed by Shri Harphool Singh Meena in connection with his investigation on 8.3.2005 at the spot of incident pursuant to which FIR 137/05 PS R. K. Puram was lodged and what investigation the DCP has made thereafter.
22. Please name in your office all APIO, PIO and Appellate Authority along with their addresses and official rank also write the name and address of the authorized person for each APIO/ PIO to whom the RTI application fee shall be paid and the mode of payment.
23. Please write from whom the PIO wanted the above stated information, give name, rank and address of each officer who gave information to which question/ clauses number also name the officer who refused to answer which of the questions or information asked and if the PIO wanted information from some other PIO/APIO then also let them give information from which officer (give their name, address and rank) what information they brought and who refused to inform in those offices write designation and address of each such officer denying information."
To this he received a response on 9-3-07 with curious opening as follows:
"No one has a right to inspect the entire record unless the same is required for any specific purpose. However the objective of RTI is to provide the access but not to allow the same as required."
Consequently, Shri Ajit Kar moved his first appeal before JCP, SR who in his order of 19-4-07 held as follows:
"Point No. 1: The appellant can not be allowed to inspect the entire record as there is no specific purpose for that.11
Point. No. 2: The point has already been covered by the PIO/ DCP/ SD vide his letter No. 254/ DIC/SW, dated 31.1.2007 at para-1 addressed to the appellant. Point No. 3: The information does not fall under the exemption of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant be informed as per his request.
Point no. 4: The copy of application dated 27.12.2006, given at PS R. K. Puram on 29.12.2006 has been provided by the appellant. The application has stamp of PS R. K. Puram but no initial of any police official, as receipt, has been found on it. Besides the PIO/DCP/SW has also denied about received of such application. At this stage option is that the appellant may give the aforesaid application to the PIO/DCP/SW afresh to take action on it, if he wants. Point No. 5&7: The replies of PIO/ DCP/SW are not objectionable.
Point No. 8&9: As request, the present appointment of the official be informed to the appellant.
Point No. 10&11: The appellant has properly informed on his requests. But, the appellant has pointed out fresh question regarding destruction of record. The appellant can give fresh application under RTI Act, 2005 with requisite fee.
Point No.12&13: The question is over the working/ manner of discharge of the duties by the police officials. There is nothing in these queries that can be called information in terms of Section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005. There is no obligation to supply such information to the appellant. Point No. 15 to 18: The appellant has required information that belongs to different Distt/ Units/ Cell of Delhi Police. Hence, for his knowledge and facilitate him, a list of PIOs/ Appellate Authorities of Delhi Police may be provided to him.
Point No. 19: The reply of PIO/DCP/SW is not objectionable. Point No. 20: The point has different queries
i) What measures has beer taken by DCP/SW on his complaint(s) regarding snatching of his complaint.
The appellant has sought information without giving material information i.e. date of complaint and to whom the same was/ were addressed. The appellant may file fresh application under the Act, with requisite fee, by mentioning therein specific detail of such complaint(s) relating to information asked for, which is necessary to obtain any information/ document(s) under The Act.
ii) What action have been taken on his complaint dated 4.3.2007 addressed to DCP/ SW and other two complaints dated 11.11.2005/ 7.2.2007 which were addressed to CP and on the information 12 given by him to the PCR regarding snatching of complaint of the appellant.
The appellant has right to know the action taken on the complaints submitted by him. The appellant be provided proper information, as admissible, under the provision of the RTI Act, 2005.
Besides, the appellant has also raised some questions in this point, which can not be called information in terms of Section 2
(f) of RTI Act, 2005. hence, the same cannot be entertained. Point No. 21: The appellant, as suggested in the appeal, can be provided information about the source of information. The appellant be briefly informed about Punjab Police Rule, Criminal Procedure Code and Police Act.
Point No. 23: There is nothing in this query which can be called information in terms of Section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005. There is no obligation to supply such information to the appellant."
This application is accompanied by an application of 22-2-07 seeking answers to 16 questions, another of 21-3-07 seeking answers to 11 questions and a third application of 26-3-07 seeking answer to 10 questions, all these accumulating in a single appeal before JCP, SR with the following prayer:
"1. That the respondent may be ordered to give or caused to give all information wanted soon.
2. That the PIO and the respondent may be ordered to be careful and meticulous and punctual in the future.
3. That the appellant may be given cost of his inconvenience, loss due to lack of promptitude in giving information which the appellant could use in applications given in various court of justice.
4. That exemplary cost and heavy compensation may be charged to the PIO refusing information with malafide intention and the appellant may be compensated for his loss."
In the above he categorised the four applications as applications (A) to (D).
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/1406 In his application of 18-6-07 appellant Shri Ajit Kar applied to the DCP, SW seeking a response to 48 questions. This application was received by the DCP on 20-6-07 and part of it was forwarded on 26-6-07 to Police Hqrs. and to the DCP (East). However, before expiry of the mandated time limit 13 appellant moved his first appeal dated 7-7-07 mistakenly stating the date of application as 18-5-07, to which JCP, SR ordered as follows on 3-8-07:
"The PIO (DCP)/ SWD had received the aforesaid application of the appellant on 20.6.2007 through speed post and the reply has been sent to the appellant vide memo dated 19.7.2007 through special messenger, which shows that the PIO (DCP)/SWD has sent reply to the appellant well in time i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of the RTI request, under the provisions of the Act. There is no delay in sending reply on the part of the Public Information Officer (DCP/SWD)."
By this time DCP, SW had already sent a point-wise reply on 19-7-07, which was within the mandated time limit providing information which was not agitated in the appeal but instead forms part of the second appeal before us, which concludes with the following prayer:
"1) That the respondent may be directed to give or cause to give the information to the appellant as wanted if not given yet.
2) That the respondent may be directed to keep the subordinate PIO under proper control and direct him to refrain from giving deliberate, misleading partial false reply under the influence of high handedness or pride the PIO need not refuse information.
3) That the appellant may be granted cost and any other relief this Hon'ble CIC dim fit may reward in favour of the appellant and any other measures may be taken against the defaulter as it seem appropriate to the CIC in the greater interest of justice and equity."
The appeals were heard together on 12-3-2009. The following are present.
Appellant Shri Ajit Kar Respondents Shri Vivek Kishore, Addl. DCP/ SWD, PIO.
Shri Kanchan Lal, ACP/ PGSW.
Ms. Sharmila, ASI/ SWD.
With regard to 3 appeals the appellant submitted that the following are the only remaining questions to the answers to which he is not satisfied:
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/0906 Question Nos. 11, 12, 13, 18 and 25 File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/973 Question Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, 15, 20, 21 (Application A) Question Nos. 1, 2, 3, 15 (Application B) Question Nos. 3, 4, 6 (Application D) 14 He was satisfied with answers to questions in Application C. Ms. Sharmila, ASI, SWD submitted that in the case of File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/973 the questions raised have already been addressed in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01267 and action has been taken thereon.
DECISION NOTICE In our decision in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01267 announced in the hearing on 182.2009, we had directed as follows:
"From the above it is clear that the information now remaining and sought by appellant is largely not available with the office of DCP, South West. Because the present postings of various officials will be on the record of Police Hqrs questions concerning the posting raised in application-A may be transferred to the CPIO, Addl. Commissioner, Police (Hqrs) who will now supply the same within the time frame mandated under the RTI Act.
On the questions raised in application-B, which concern documents that have been transferred to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate the request may be transferred to that court for consideration under the RTI Act 2005.
The above transfers may be made within 5 days from the date of receipt of this decision notice. The information on the officers referred to in question No.10 of application-B will now be provided to appellant Shri Kar within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice. Because this information ahs not been provided thus far, it will u/s 7(6) be provided free of charge. The appeal is thus allowed in part, but there will be no costs."
Similarly the questions in the present appeals are of a nature similar to those regarding which the decision was announced on 18.2.09. In the present case in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/0906 also information referred to in questions 12, 13, 18 & 25 as held by the DCP (SW) will be provided to appellant Sh. Ajit Kar within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
Similarly in addition since in question 11, the applicant has sought access to the working of Police Station R. K. Puram, for this purpose he may 15 be permitted to sit in the office for a day on a mutually convenient date with timings specified.
On the same grounds questions 8 & 9 of Application 'A' in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00973 may be transferred to the CPIO Addl. Commissioner of Police (H.Q.) who will supply the same to appellant Shri Kar within the time frame mandated under the RTI Act. Information as held by the Office of DCP will also be provided in response to question Nos. 2 & 15. Question Nos. 20 & 21, however, are hypothetical and cannot constitute information as defined under sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Similarly with regard to the Application 'B', responses to questions 1, 3 & 15 as held by the DCP (SW) will be provided to appellant in the time span specified above. However, during the hearing respondents have informed appellant in response to question 2 that the record of the persons of an area coming under the jurisdiction of the DCP (SW) are kept in the PPR Register.
Again with regard to application 'D', question Nos. 3, 4 & 6, we find that respondents do not have any information on point No. 3 but may give such information, as is held by them with regard to questions 4 & 6.
The appeals are thus allowed in part. Because the public authority has been at pains to service the somewhat cumbersome applications of appellant Shri Ajit Kar, with a host of questions put in single applications, not all of which pertain to 'information' or indeed 'the right to information' as defined in the Act, there will be no cost.
Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced on this 30th day of April 2009 in open chambers. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 30-4-2009 16 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 30-4-2009 17