Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Delhi Police on 28 February, 2023
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/2021/638970 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644243
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638975 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644247
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638982 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644251
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640075 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/637991
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640079 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/637992
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640081 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638346
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640085 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638379
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640086 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638383
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640666 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638385
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/641131 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638386
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/641398 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638390
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/641595 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638987
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/641864 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644241
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/641876 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/621908
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/642387 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/621993
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/643185 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/630572
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644230 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/603259
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638990
Shri Varun Krishna ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1 PIO/Addl. DCP-I, Delhi Police, East District ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
2. PIO, O/o the Jt. Commissioner of Police, Hdqrs
3. PIO, DCP, Police Hqrs.
4. PIO, DCP, Vigilance
Through: Shri Pankaj Sharma - ACP, East
District, SI Rahul Kumar; Shri Rajesh
Kumar(Hq.) and ASI Satender Singh
Date of Hearing : 27.02.2023
Date of Decision : 28.02.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Page 1 of 60
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on appeal dated
638970 19.06.2021 16.07.2021 18.07.2021 17.08.2021 25.08.2021
638975 19.06.2021 19.07.2021 19.07.2021 17.08.2021 25.08.2021
638982 19.06.2021 19.07.2021 19.07.2021 17.08.2021 25.08.2021
640075 28.06.2021 27.07.2021 28.07.2021 31.08.2021 31.08.2021
640079 28.06.2021 27.07.2021 28.07.2021 31.08.2021 31.08.2021
640081 28.06.2021 27.07.2021 28.07.2021 31.08.2021 31.08.2021
640085 28.06.2021 27.07.2021 28.07.2021 31.08.2021 31.08.2021
640086 28.06.2021 27.07.2021 28.07.2021 31.08.2021 31.08.2021
640666 21.06.2021 16.07.2021 19.07.2021 17.08.2021 03.09.2021
641131 01.07.2021 04.08.2021 04.08.2021 01.09.2021 06.09.2021
641398 25.06.2021 27.07.2021 28.07.2021 31.08.2021 07.09.2021
641595 10.07.2021 28.07.2021 09.08.2021 08.09.2021 08.09.2021
641864 09.07.2021 06.08.2021 06.08.2021 08.09.2021 09.09.2021
641876 09.07.2021 06.08.2021 06.08.2021 08.09.2021 09.09.2021
642387 28.06.2021 27.07.2021 28.07.2021 31.08.2021 31.08.2021
643185 15.07.2021 16.08.2021 16.08.2021 15.09.2021 16.09.2021
644230 20.07.2021 16.08.2021 16.08.2021 20.09.2021 21.09.2021
638990 19.06.2021 19.07.2021 19.07.2021 17.08.2021 25.08.2021
644241 20.07.2021 16.08.2021 16.08.2021 20.09.2021 21.09.2021
644243 19.07.2021 16.08.2021 16.08.2021 20.09.2021 21.09.2021
644247 19.07.2021 16.08.2021 16.08.2021 20.09.2021 21.09.2021
644251 19.07.2021 16.08.2021 16.08.2021 20.09.2021 21.09.2021
637991 23.06.2021 22.07.2021 22.07.2021 19.08.2021 20.08.2021
637992 24.06.2021 22.07.2021 22.07.2021 19.08.2021 20.08.2021
638346 19.06.2021 19.07.2021 19.07.2021 19.08.2021 23.08.2021
638379 19.06.2021 16.07.2021 18.07.2021 17.08.2021 23.08.2021
638383 18.06.2021 16.07.2021 18.07.2021 17.08.2021 23.08.2021
638385 19.06.2021 19.07.2021 19.07.2021 17.08.2021 23.08.2021
638386 19.06.2021 19.07.2021 19.07.2021 17.08.2021 23.08.2021
638390 19.06.2021 19.07.2021 19.07.2021 17.08.2021 23.08.2021
638987 19.06.2021 19.07.2021 19.07.2021 17.08.2021 25.08.2021
638989 15.06.2021 15.07.2021 18.07.2021 17.08.2021 25.08.2021
621908 03.03.2021 22.03.2021 23.03.2021 22.04.2021 04.06.2021
& 28.04.2021
19.03.2021 &
28.05.2021
621993 03.03.2021 22.03.2021 23.03.2021 28.04.2021 04.06.2021
& & 22.04.2021
19.03.2021 04.05.2021 &
28.05.2021
630572 22.02.2021 19.03.2021 19.03.2021 23.04.2021 11.05.2021
Page 2 of 60
&
05.05.2021
603259 13.11.2020 11.12.2020 13.12.2020 15.01.2021 03.02.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
1. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638970 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2021 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
The PIO vide online letter dated 16.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 3. You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
"We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those Page 3 of 60 details as a matter of right.............Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act"
You may search your own records to sort out your RTI applications and complaints. Otherwise doing such a research-work by Delhi Police (East District) to sort out too many RTI applications out of which most are yours, will be quite voluminous requiring disproportionate diversification of resources. Reference is invited to para 37 of Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
4. SHO/New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638975 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 4 of 60The PIO sent an online response dated 19.07.2021 stating as under:-
1 to 5. You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
"We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right.............Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information"
as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act"
Page 5 of 60You may search your own records to sort out your RTI applications. Otherwise doing such a research-work by Delhi Police (East District) to sort out too many RTI applications out of which most are yours, will be quite voluminous requiring disproportionate diversification of resources. Reference is invited to para 37 of Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
6. SHO/New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
3. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638982 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
Page 6 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 19.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 4. You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
"..We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right.............Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act"
You may search your own records to sort out your RTI applications filed about MCD. Otherwise doing such a research-work by Delhi Police (East District) to sort out too many RTI applications out of which most are yours, will be quite voluminous requiring disproportionate diversification of resources. Reference is Page 7 of 60 invited to para 37 of Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
5. SHO New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
4. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640075 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 8 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 27.07.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/04628 dated 25.06.2021 & 04705+04706+04707+04710+04711 all dated 28.06.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and Page 9 of 60 result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 31.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640079 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2021 seeking information on following 05 points:-
Page 10 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 27.07.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/04628 dated 25.06.2021 & 04705+04706+04707+04710+04711 all dated 28.06.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national Page 11 of 60 development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the [incomplete reply has been annexed with the second appeal] Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 31.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
6. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640081 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 12 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 27.07.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/04628 dated 25.06.2021 & 04705+04706+04707+04710+04711 all dated 28.06.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the [incomplete reply has been annexed with the second appeal] Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 31.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
7. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640085 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2021 seeking information on following 05 points:-
Page 13 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 27.07.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/04628 dated 25.06.2021 & 04705+04706+04707+04710+04711 all dated 28.06.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national Page 14 of 60 development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the [incomplete reply has been annexed with the second appeal] Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 31.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
8. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640086 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2021 seeking information on following 06 points:-
The PIO vide online letter dated 27.07.2021 replied as under:-Page 15 of 60
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/04628 dated 25.06.2021 & 04705+04706+04707+04710+04711 all dated 28.06.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the [incomplete reply has been annexed with the second appeal] Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 31.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
9. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/641398 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.06.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 16 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 27.07.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/04628 dated 25.06.2021 & 04705+04706+04707+04710+04711 all dated 28.06.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal Page 17 of 60 number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the [incomplete reply has been annexed with the second appeal] Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 31.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
10. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/641864 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2021 seeking information on the following 07 points:-
Page 18 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 06.08.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of two similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/05082 & 05079 dated 09.07.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 08.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.Page 19 of 60
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
11. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/641876 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.07.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
The PIO vide online letter dated 06.08.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of two similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/05082 & 05079 dated 09.07.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court- verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative Page 20 of 60 to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 08.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
12. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/642387 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2021 seeking information on following 06 points:-
Page 21 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 27.07.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/04628 dated 25.06.2021 & 04705+04706+04707+04710+04711 all dated 28.06.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to Page 22 of 60 be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the [incomplete reply has been annexed with the second appeal] Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 31.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
13. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644230 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 23 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 16.08.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/05388+05387+05386 dated 19.07.2021 & DEPOL/R/E/21/05442+05441+05440 dated 20.07.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."Page 24 of 60
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
14. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644241 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
The PIO vide online letter dated 19.07.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/05388+05387+05386 dated 19.07.2021 & DEPOL/R/E/21/05442+05441+05440 dated 20.07.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a Page 25 of 60 single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
15. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644243 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2021 seeking information on the following 07 points:-
Page 26 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 16.08.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/05388+05387+05386 dated 19.07.2021 & DEPOL/R/E/21/05442+05441+05440 dated 20.07.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal Page 27 of 60 number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
16. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644247 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 28 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 16.08.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/05388+05387+05386 dated 19.07.2021 & DEPOL/R/E/21/05442+05441+05440 dated 20.07.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
".....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and Page 29 of 60 harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
17. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644251 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2021 seeking information on following 06 points:-
Page 30 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 16.08.2021 replied as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/05388+05387+05386 dated 19.07.2021 & DEPOL/R/E/21/05442+05441+05440 dated 20.07.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the Page 31 of 60 administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
18. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/637991 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.06.2021 seeking information on the following 07 points:-
Page 32 of 60The PIO vide online response dated 22.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 6. You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under: "We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right.............Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act"
7. SHO New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 19.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
19. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/637992 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.06.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 33 of 60The PIO vide online response dated 22.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 5. You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under: "We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right.............Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act"
6. SHO New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 19.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 34 of 60Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
20. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638346 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated19.06.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
The PIO vide online response dated 19.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 4. You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under: "We fail to understand as to how Page 35 of 60 the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right.............Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act"
You may search your own records to sort out your RTI applications filed about Traffic Police.
Otherwise doing such a research-work by Delhi Police (East District) to sort out too many RTI applications out of which most are yours, will be quite voluminous requiring disproportionate diversification of resources. Reference is invited to para 37 of Supreme Court verdict dated09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
5. SHO/New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 19.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
21. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638379 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated19.06.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 36 of 60The PIO vide online response dated 16.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 5. You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
"We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right.............Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act"
You may search your own records to sort out your Emails. Otherwise doing such a research-work by Delhi Police (East District) to sort out too many RTI applications out of which most are yours, will be quite voluminous requiring Page 37 of 60 disproportionate diversification of resources. Reference is invited to para 37 of Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
6. SHO/New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
22. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638383 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 38 of 60The PIO vide online response dated 16.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 & 2. The decision Vide No. 1325, CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/628867 and 629280, dated 27.08.2020 was received in this office on 08/09/2020 and in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble CIC the revised reply has already been sent to the Hon'ble CIC as well as to you vide No ID951+990/2018/ 2324-25/A-RTI/East, dated 28.09.2020. However, a copy of the same is again enclosed herewith.
3. The asked information is in nature of query and seeking such type of information does not come under the preview of "Information" as per section 2 (f) of RTI Act-2005.
4. SHO New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 39 of 60Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
23. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638987 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
The PIO vide online response dated 19.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 4. You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:Page 40 of 60
"We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right .............Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act"
You may search your own records to sort out your RTI applications/complaints filed other agencies. Otherwise doing such a research-work by Delhi Police (East District) to sort out too many RTI applications out of which most are yours, will be quite voluminous requiring disproportionate diversification of resources. Reference is invited to para 37 of Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
5. SHO New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 41 of 60Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the hearing, while the Appellant has sent an email dated 27.02.2023 stating that he would not be able to attend the hearing on account of traffic disruption due to ongoing political protest. Hence he requested that the hearing be held through audio conference, which is acceded to given the traffic situation owing to the demonstrations/protests and to avoid disruption of hearings.
The Appellant contended during the audio conference that in the aforementioned twenty three appeals, he had sought information pertaining to a reply dated 19.05.2021 signed by an erstwhile SHO, New Ashok Nagar and an enquiry report dated 09.04.2021 submitted by the Insp. PG Cell, in order to prove that both documents contained unsubstantiated and baseless observations against the Appellant. Respondents stated that the Appellant had been duly responded to and information based on official records had been duly provided to him in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision On perusal of the records of the aforementioned appeals, it is noted that the PIO has in some cases cited the decision dated 17.09.2014 of the Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" which is untenable, since the Appellant had not sought copies of complaints or appeals filed by him, but information like statistical data relating to the cases filed by him. Hence, the ratio propounded by the Madras High Court in the decision cited by the PIO, is not applicable to the cases at hand.
The nature of queries raised by the Appellant in the aforementioned cases coupled with his oral averments during the course of hearing indicate that he had filed the aforementioned cases seeking justification and grounds behind the two specific documents viz. reply dated 19.05.2021 signed by an erstwhile SHO, New Ashok Nagar and an enquiry report dated 09.04.2021 submitted by the Insp. PG Cell. The Commission finds it pertinent to place reliance on some decisions in this regard:
i) the Bombay High Court vide its decision dated 03.04.2018 in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. The Goa State Information Commission held as under:
" ..The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot be expected to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information..."Page 42 of 60
Thus, applying above the legal observation in this case, it is clear that query which seeks justification or clarification involving the personal opinion of the PIO as opposed to information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, cannot be entertained under the RTI Act.
The other aspect of the PIO's reply deals with the citing of the Apex Court's decision in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay in order to point out that disclosure of the voluminous information sought by the Appellant would be counter-productive and will adversely affect the operational efficiency as the public officials be left engaged in non-productive work, instead of the job for which they have been appointed as public servants. The Courts have pronounced a number of decisions addressing this aspect, some of the most prominent ones being as under:
ii) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its decision dated 05.02.2014 in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] has held that:
'...This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.'
iii) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide decision dated 08.10.2015 in the case of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' A significant aspect of the aforementioned cases is that the above appeals originate out of the Appellant's objection with remarks made by the public authority in the reply and report as mentioned in the RTI Applications. However, the RTI Act is not designed or equipped to handle dispute resolution. This aspect stands settled before the Courts of law, and some of the pertinent decisions in this regard are as follows:
a) decision dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors., relevant excerpt whereof is as follows:
".. 6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 from the employment of the respondent Bank Page 43 of 60 is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished. Moreover, there is a categorical finding of the CIC, of the appellants misusing the RTI Act, as is also evident from the plethora of RTI applications filed by the appellants. In view of the said factual findings of the CIC and which is not interfered by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge...."
b) It is also noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 of 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority.
In the light of the aforementioned decisions laid down by the Courts of law whereby the jurisdiction, scope and ambit of the RTI Act have been discussed at length, the Commission finds that no further intervention is deemed necessary in the aforementioned appeals, under the RTI Act.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
24. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638390 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-Page 44 of 60
The PIO vide online response dated 19.07.2021 replied as under:-
1. In this regard no such documents were prepared.
2,3,4. Not applicable in view of point No.1
5. SHO New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
25. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/641595 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
Page 45 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 09.08.2021 replied as under:-
This is with reference to your RTI application dated 10.07.2021 which was received in RTI Cell/East District on dated 13.07.2021 through online DEPOL/R/E/21/05123/1 under RTI Act-2005. In this regard as per report received from HAC Branch/East District, the asked information on your RTI application is as under:- 1& 2. The asked e-mail diarized vide e-mail No. 260, dated 14/01/2021, HAC Branch/East District. Emailed complaint comprises of two pages. You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under: "We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right.............Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act"
3,4. The asked above complaint/e-mail has been filed.
5. N/A Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 08.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 46 of 6026. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/643185 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
The PIO vide online letter dated 16.08.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 8. In this regard, you have already informed to join the personal hearing through email & letters vide No.671/A-RTI/East, dated 23.06.2021, dated Page 47 of 60 25.06.2021, 26.06.2021,01.07.2021, letter No.709/A-RTI, dated 01.07.2021, latter No.1744/A-RTI/East District, Dated 08.07.2021, No.1753/A-RTI/East District dated 09.07.2021. Copy of the same letters have also been sent to you and notice of hearing dated 25.06.2021, 26.06.2021 and 01.07.2021 has also been sent through e-mail to your mail Id as ordered by DCP/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 15.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
27. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638385 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
The PIO vide online response dated 19.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 3. The copies of letters which was sent to EDMC through SHO/New Ashok Nagar is enclosed herewith in which details have been mentioned.
4. No action has been taken by EDMC yet.Page 48 of 60
5. Not applicable in view of point No.4.
6. SHO New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
28. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638386 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
The PIO vide online response dated 19.07.2021 replied as under:-Page 49 of 60
1. In this regard all document have been submitted in the KKD Court you may obtain the copy of same from the KKD Court.
3. Concerned MCD department have been informed several times for taking necessary action against the Dhaba.
2,4,5. The asked information is in nature of query and seeking such type of information does not come under the preview of "Information" as per section 2 (f) of RTI Act-2005.
6. SHO New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
29. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/630572 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.11.2020 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
The PIO vide online response dated 19.11.2020 replied as under:-
1 to 4. The requisite information has already been uploaded on online concerned portal. However, a copy of the action history is enclosed herewith.
5. I/C portal/East District.Page 50 of 60
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2021. The FAA/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, vide order dated 23.04.2021 held as under:-
I have gone through the relevant record as well as comments of the PIO/East Distt.and found that the PIO/East Distt. has been provided the information to you against your RTI application vide his office memo No. 396/2021/805/Info. Cell/East Distt. dated 19.03.2021 well in time as per RTI Act-2005 accordingly. In these circumstances, there is no way to interfere in to the reply/information supplied to you by the PIO/East Distt. Hence, your appeal application is hereby considered and rejected.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the hearing, while the Appellant has sent an email dated 27.02.2023 stating that he would not be able to attend the hearing on account of traffic disruption due to ongoing political protest. Hence he requested that the hearing be held through audio conference, which is acceded to given the traffic situation owing to the demonstrations/protests and to avoid disruption of hearings.
Decision:
Perusal of the records of the aforementioned appeals reveals that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly provided by the PIO. Considering the fact that information held by the public authority stands duly disseminated to the Appellant, no cause of action subsists under the RTI Act for further adjudication in the aforementioned six appeals.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
30. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/640666 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.06.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
Page 51 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 16.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 4. Since your referred E-mail of dated 19/06/2021 is linked with this RTI application, which is still pending enquiry with ACP/PG Cell/East District.
Hence, any further information at this stage is likely to impede process of enquiry, and as such information is declined as exempted under section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act.
5. HAC Branch/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
31. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/641131 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.06.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
Page 52 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 04.08.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 4. Since your referred E-mail of dated 19/06/2021 is linked with this RTI application, which is still pending enquiry with ACP/PG Cell/East District.
Hence, any further information at this stage is likely to impede process of enquiry, and as such information is declined as exempted under section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act.
5. HAC Branch/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 01.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
32. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638990 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
Page 53 of 60The PIO vide online letter dated 19.07.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 4. The matter of enquiry on the complaint of Sh. Devender Yadav is presently under enquiry with E.O/HC Kuldeep, P.S New Ashok Nagar/East District. Any further information at this stage is likely to impede process of enquiry, and as such information is declined as exempted under section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act.
5. SHO New Ashok Nagar/East District.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
33. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/621908 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.03.2021 seeking information on following 05 points:-
Page 54 of 60The PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, East District, vide online response dated 22.03.2021 replied as under:-
The PIO/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Hqrs. vide letter dated 19.03.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 23.03.2021 & 04.05.2021.
The First Appeal dated 23.03.2021 was decided by the FAA vide order dated 28.04.2021 as under:-
I have gone through the relevant record as well as comments of the PIO/East Distt. and found that the PIO/East Distt. has been provided the information to you against your RTI application vide his office memo No. 458/2021/871/Info.Page 55 of 60
Cell/East Distt. dated 22.03.2021 well in time as per RTI Act-2005 accordingly. The PIO/East Distt. is hereby directed to reconsider the RTI application of the appellant and provide a fresh reply in his RTI application within 10 working days. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
The First Appeal dated 04.05.2021 was decided by the FAA vide order dated 22.04.2021 as under:-
The FAA/Addl. Commissioner of Police/Pers., Hqr, vide order dated 28.05.2021 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
34. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/621993 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.03.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
Page 56 of 60The PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, East District vide online response dated 22.03.2021 replied as under:-
The PIO/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Hqrs. vide letter dated 19.03.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeals dated 23.03.2021 & 04.05.2021.
The first appeal dated 23.03.2021 was decided by the FAA vide order dated 28.04.2021 as under:-
I have gone through the relevant record as well as comments of the PIO/East Distt. and found that the PIO/East Distt. has been provided the information to you against your RTI application vide his office memo No. 458/2021/870/Info. Cell/East Distt. dated 22.03.2021 well in time as per RTI Act-2005 accordingly. The PIO/East Distt. is hereby directed to reconsider the RTI application of the appellant and provide a fresh reply in his RTI application within 10 working days. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.Page 57 of 60
The First Appeal dated 04.05.2021 was disposed off by the FAA vide order dated 22.04.2021 as under:-
The FAA/Addl. Commissioner of Police/Pers, Hqr, vide order dated 28.05.2021 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
35. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/603259 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.11.2020 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 58 of 60The PIO/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Police Hqrs. vide dated 11.12.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2020. The FAA/Jt. Commissioner of Police, Hdqrs, vide order dated 15.01.2021 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the hearing, while the Appellant has sent an email dated 27.02.2023 stating that he would not be able to attend the hearing on account of traffic disruption due to ongoing political protest. Hence he Page 59 of 60 requested that the hearing be held through audio conference, which is acceded to given the traffic situation owing to the demonstrations/protests and to avoid disruption of hearings.
Decision:
Examination of the aforementioned cases reveals that information about the updated action taken report has not been furnished in the aforementioned six cases due to different reasons, but primarily because of pendency of enquiry at the relevant point of time. Since reasonable time has lapsed since the complaints/emails were sent and the PIOs replied, the PIO/Addl. DCP, East District is hereby directed to send action taken reports to the Appellant, in the aforementioned six appeals within four weeks of receipt of this order. A compliance report shall be submitted before the Commission by the respondent by 31.03.2023.
The appeals are disposed off on the above terms.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 60 of 60