Central Information Commission
Mrpayoshi Roy vs Delhi Police on 12 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/SB/C/2016/000026/SB
Dated 15.02.2016
Complainant : Ms. Payoshi Roy,
DD13, Lower Ground Floor
Kalkaji Extension
New Dellhi110 019.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
Delhi Police o/o ADCPI Cum PIO
South District, Near PS
Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 12.02.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.12.2015
Complaint filed on : 22.01.2016
ORDER
1. Ms. Payoshi Roy filed an application dated 19.12.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Police o/o ADCPI Cum PIO seeking information on five points pertaining to FIR No. 2228/2015, including (i) copy of complaint submitted by Mr. Rashid R/o Tara Boys Home on the basis of which FIR No. 2228/2015 was registered against Mr. Sidhu Yadav at Malviya Nagar PS on 14.12.2015; (ii) copy of the statement of alleged victim u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 recorded before the Magistrate in relation to the matter titled "State versus Sidhu Yadav' under FIR No. 2228/2015; (iii) copy of reply filed by SI Deepak to the Bail Application moved before the Ld. ASJ, Manoj Kumar, Saket District Courts, on behalf of the accused in the matter titled "State versus Sidhu Yadav' under FIR No. 2228/2015; etc.
2. The complainant filed a complaint on 22.01.2016 before the Commission on the ground that no information has been provided by the CPIO. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO concerned to provide the information as sought by her. Hearing:
3. The complainant Ms. Payoshi Roy and the respondent Ms. Richa Tomar, APIO and ACP, Delhi Police were present in person.
4. The complainant submitted that she had filed an RTI application dated 19.12.2015 seeking information pertaining to the life and liberty of Mr. Sidhu Yadav, the accused in FIR no. 2228/2015. She further submitted that Shri Yadav was in judicial custody and the information was sought in connection with his bail application, the hearing of which was listed on 27.01.2016. She further submitted that the PIO should have replied to her RTI application within 48 hours as per proviso to Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. However, no information was provided to her till 4th February, 2016. The complainant further submitted that though the reply is dated 19.01.2016, it was sent only on 04.02.2016 as is evident from the postal stamp at the back of the envelope containing the reply.
5. The respondent submitted that investigation in FIR no. 2228/2015/Malviya Nagar is pending. Hence, copies of the statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the CrPC cannot be provided as disclosure of the same would impede the process of investigation. Hence, the same cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Decision:
6. The Commission observes that the complainant had filed an RTI application seeking information concerning the life and liberty of a person. Thus, reply to the RTI application should have been sent within 48 hours of the receipt of the application. However, this was not done. The Commission takes a very serious view of this delay. The CPIO is, therefore, cautioned to be more careful, in future, in discharging his duties under the RTI Act.
7. The Commission also notes that though the reply is dated 19.01.2016, it was dispatched only on 04.02.2016 as is evident from the postal stamp at the back of the envelope containing the reply. Therefore, either the reply was antedated or the reply was dispatched late. The Commission, therefore, directs the FAA to inquire into the matter and take suitable action against the delinquent officer(s) so that such lapses do not recur. A copy of the action taken report should be submitted to the Commission within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide copies of the complaint and FIR no. 2228/2015 to the complainant within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The complaint is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer