Central Information Commission
Shri Devi Shankar Sharma vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (Dcp) ... on 6 August, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000404 dated 27.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Devi Shankar Sharma
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP) Central Distt.
Decision announced: 6.8.2009
Facts:
By an application of 6.8.08, received in the office of PIO on 18.8.08, Shri Devi Shankar Sharma of Karol Bagh, New Delhi applied to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi seeking the following information:
"Information sought:
a) M/s Royal Jewellers, 2803/19, Beadon Pura Ground Floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
b) M/s High Aim Gems & Jewellery, 2803/ 20, Beadonpura, Ground Floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
(i) The name/s, father's name/s and residential address of the owners/ partners of the above said shops, located in the above said premises which have been let out in August 2007 and in September 2007 to the respective e shops abovementioned.
(ii) Whether the required verification of the above said tenants, owners or partners thereof has been made and information with regard to the same has been given either by the landlord or by the said tenants, to the concerned police station at Karol Bagh.
(iii) If so the copy/ies thereof received at the police station or kept on record therein, may please be provided.
(iv) The information also on the action taken in compliance of the letter dated 18.6.2006 given by the applicant to the commissioner of police (vide diary No. 5518/GD to CP dated 18.6.2008) copy enclosed with all Annexure. And whether any verification as to the tenants has been made, as requ9ired under various orders and/or notifications issued and published widely in the newspapers from time to time from the police department/ Govt."1
To this Shri Devi Shankar Sharma received a response on 17.9.08 from PIO Sh. Jaspal Singh DCP Central District as follows:
"3(a). No shop in the name of M/s Royal Jewellers exists at the Ground Floor of 2803/19, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. There is only one godown at the ground floor and the tenant name of the godown is Mr. Suresh Goyal, S/o Lt. Shri. Manohar Lal by Mr. Uma Shankar brother the residing of 1st floor. The shop/godown always remains closed and it has been closed for the last 20 years.
(b) M/s High Aim Gems & Jewellers, 2803/20, Beadon Pura, Ground Floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi is present and the proprietor name is Mr. Chander Gupta Sehgal. The shop has been divided into two parts and in one part High Aim Gems & Jewellers and in second part M/s Muskan Boutique is being run by the proprietor Smt. Vanita Sehgal.
(i) Proprietor of the shop namely: High Aim Gems & Jewellers is Mr. Chander Gupta Sehgal, S/o Shri Rikkhi Ram Sehgal R/o 267, Ghalib Apartment Pitam Pura, Delhi and proprietor of M/s Muskan Boutique is Smt. Vanita Sehgal w/o Shri Gagan Sehgal r/o WZ-2367 Gali No. 6, Raja Park, near Shakar Pur, Delhi.
(ii) The said shop was rented out to Mr. Rikkhi Ram Sehgal 40 years ago and the two persons who are running both the shops are the son and family members of Mr. Rikkhi Ram Sehgal. The tenant verification form has been filed in this respect and has been sent to get their antecedents verified.
(iii) You may collect the requisite information/ documents from this office after depositing requisite documentary fees of Rs. 4/- at Account Branch, DCP Office, Central District, Delhi.
(iv) The shop at ground floor on 2803/20 was in possession of Late Rikkhi Ram Sehgal since 40 years and is now in the possession of his son Mr. Chander Gupta Sehgal. He is not paying any rent to anybody for the last 14 years back.
Hence no action was taken against them on the complaint filed by you. As regards the verification of tenant, the forms duly filled are being sent for verification in respect of the two above-mentioned tenants.
4 (a) It does not relate to Police.
(b) The owner of the M/s High Aims Gems and Jewellery is Mr. Chander Gupta Sehgal only.
(c) The tenant Mr. Chander Gupta Sehgal is the tenant after expiry of his father. His father late Shri Rikkhi Ram Sehgal was the tenant of the shop 2803/20 for well over 30 years 2 and the tenancy was rented by the Late Shri Gopi Nath Sharma only."
Aggrieved with this response Shri Sharma moved an appeal before Shri P.R. Meena, JCP PHQ dated 7.10.08 with the following plea:
"Issue directions for providing the correct, authentic and complete information with documentary supports to the appellant herein in compl8iance of the provisions of the said Act and in the interest of justice."
Appellant Shri Devi Shankar Sharma based this on the following contention:
"The information given as above with regard to the shop M/s Royal Jewellers is false, based on incomplete and misinformed facts on the face of the concrete official information of he Department of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi, according to which the said firm was duly registered under the sale tax laws w.e.f. 26.9.2007 with partners as Mr. Sharwan Kumar, S/o Mr. Hari Chand Gupta and Mr. Pradeep Kumar, S/o Mr. Nanak Chand.' JCP Sh. Karnal Singh, Appellate Authority in his order of 7.11.08 directed as follows:
"Contentions put forth by the appellant and reports of PIO/Central Distt have been considered. The information sought by the appellant in his RTI Application was related to Delhi Police and agencies. The appellant has raised certain queries/ contentions in response to the reply provided by PIO/Central Distt. The appeal is remitted to PIO/Central Distt. with the directions to consider the same and provide the specific, relevant and complete information to he points which are related to Delhi Police, which are related to other agencies, the RTI application of the appellant be sent to concerned authorities for taking further necessary action under intimation to the appellant. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.' In compliance DCP Shri Jaspal Singh then sent a letter of 4.12.08 with the following information to appellant Shri Devi Shankar Sharma:
"3 (a) & (b): The information has already been provided to you.
However, in order to ascertain the authenticity of the information you may approach to MCD.
3 (i) As above mentioned.3
3(ii) The tenants' verification form has already been sent to the concerned Police Station and the report/ verification is still awaited.
3(iii) The copies have already been provided to you. 3(iv) The information has already been provided to you.
4. (a) It relates to MCD.
4. (b) It relates to MCD.
4. (c) It relates to MCD.
Shri Devi Shankar Sharma has then approached us in second appeal with the following prayer:
'1. direct the Ld. CPIO to provide the information sought with fairness to the requirement of the appellant, which otherwise do not effect the interest of anyone concerned with the said firms as it is apparent from the nature of the information sought which hare most general and no privacy or secrecy of commercial nature is involved therein, whatsoever, the purpose of seeking the information also being most genuine and with the rights of the appellant under the Constitution;
2. all the records and papers in respect of the information obtained and collected by the Ld. CPIO based on the documents and supporting furnished by the appellant along with his application under the RTI Act and on the efforts made by the Ld. CPIO in this regard;
3. provide an opportunity of hearing the appellant to express his views and contentions in regard to this appeal over and above what has been stated herein before.
In the arguments presented in support of his appeal, Shri Sharma has submitted as follows:
"That the facts cannot be ignored that the Shop M/s High Aims Gems and Jewellery has been let out to persons other then Mr. Chandra Gupt Sehgal and is being run and owned by other persons not at all related to any person named Mr. Chandra Gupt Sehgal, who is stated to be residing at another place and also having no stake in the said shop, either in sales or purchase or bank account operations or any business transaction whatsoever. The Ld. CPIO could have easily collected the relevant facts before giving his reply only as a 'layman'.' 4 In the meantime, Shri Devi Shankar Sharma had moved another application through the Department of Trade & Taxes, GNCTD which after going through the process of response and appeal was decided upon by this Commission on 18.12.08 with the following order:
"In view of the above, it is directed that the CPIO, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, shall provide to the appellant the names of the partners of the Firm, M/s Royal Jewellers including other details such as the father's name of the partners, the partners addresses, if it is in the control of the public authority."
In compliance with that order Shri V. K. Bansal, APIO Dep't of Trade & taxes New Delhi has provided Shri Sharma with the following information:
S. Name of partner Father's Name Residential address No.
1. Sharwan Kumar S/o Hari Chand 408/5A, K-2, Gali No. Gupta 29 & 30 Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005
2. Pradeep Kumar S/o Nanak Chand 201, 2nd floor, Naveen Apartments Pitam Pura, New Delhi-
110034 The appeal was heard on 6.8.2009. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Devi Shankar Sharma Sh. M. P. Sharma, Advocate Respondents Shri Jaspal Singh, IPS, DCP/Central Ms. Meenu Choudhary, Addl. DCP / Central Distt. Insp. Vimal Kishore, SHO, PS Karol Bagh SI Mahipal, PS Karol Bagh PIO Ms. Meenu Choudhary, Addl. DCP Central Distt. submitted that the information sought by appellant Shri Sharma is not held by the Police Department. Nevertheless, on the plea of Shri Sharma. and taking into account his age, enquiries have been conducted by the Police and the information sought has been supplied to Shri Sharma. Shri M. P. Sharma , Learned Counsel for 5 appellant, however, submitted that the information provided is incomplete and false.
DCP Jaspal Singh agrees, however, that although not legally bound so to do, but in the interest of maintaining law & order the police Department do maintain a record of tenant verification in forms, copies of which have been supplied to appellant Shri Devi Shankar Sharma. Upon this learned Counsel for appellant Shri M. P. Sharma agreed that the tenants verification has been provided but that the tenant verification form for M/s. High Aim Gems & Jewellery does not give the name of the landlord or indeed the date when from the property has been rented. He was however satisfied with the information obtained regarding Royal Jewellers consequent to the decision of this Commission of 18.12.08 On the question of the remaining information sought, including verification of ownership Shri Jaspal Singh submitted that the matter had been transferred to the Commissioner, MCD on 3.12.2008 under intimation to appellant Shri Devi Shankar Sharma, who, however, averred that he had received no response from the MCD. A copy of the letter transferring the application has been obtained from DCP Shri Jaspal Singh and placed on record. In this letter addressed to Commissioner MCD Shri Jaspal Singh has stated as below:
"On scrutiny it came to notice that the information asked by Shri Devi Shankar Sharma, some points pertain to your department. It is, therefore, the said application is being transferred to your office for further necessary action and provided point wise reply on points pertains to your office. The applicant has deposited required fees of RS. 10/- at Account Branch, Central District, Darya Ganj.
Incase it does not fall under your office the application may please be further transferred to the Pubic Authority to which the subject matter is more closely connected directly, under intimation to the applicant."
DECISION NOTICE 6 As agreed by respondents tenant verification forms are part of the record maintained by the office of DCP. We have perused the format of the tenant verification form which provides for the name of the landlord as well as the date from which the property had been rented. In the present case of M/s High Aim Gems and Jewellery, however, both columns are empty. PIO Ms. Meenu Choudhary, Addl. DCP Central Distt. will obtain the information under both these heads and provide the same to the appellant Shri Sharma within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
For the remaining information, the request had been transferred to Commissioner, MCD from whom no response appears to have been received. Shri K. S. Mehra, Commissioner, MCD is, therefore, directed to ensure that the CPIO dealing with the subject sends a response to appellant Shri Devi Shankar Sharma within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. Since Shri Devi Shankar Sharma has made no appeal against the failure of receipt of information from the MCD, we cannot now invoke application of penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act against the concerned CPIO. However, Commissioner, MCD is directed u/s 19(8)(a) to ensure that his public authority functions in full compliance with the RTI Act and for this purpose will seek an explanation from the CPIO as to why he has not responded to the application transferred to the MCD by DCP (Central).The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part. There will be no cost.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 6.8.2009 7 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 6.8.2009 8