Central Information Commission
Priyash Bhargava vs Delhi Police on 25 October, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/133148
Priyash Bhargava ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o Addl. Dy. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Commissioner of Police, North
West District, Delhi Police.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.01.2018 FA : 22.02.2018 SA : 25.05.2018
CPIO : 21.02.2018 FAO : 14.03.2018 Hearing : 23.10.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, North West District seeking information on thirteen points pertaining to FIR No. 130 dated 04.04.2017, registered at Model Town Police Station, Delhi, including, inter-alia, (i) records showing as to whether any notice was issued to the accused, (ii) if so, and in case of delivery by hand, the details of the person who received it and the details of the officer who delivered it, such as name, id proof, batch no., etc. Page 1 of 5
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the respondent did not provide information on point nos. 1 to 7 and 13 of his RTI application on the plea that the matter is pending investigation and hence the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He further contended that information/reply provided under points 8-10, and 12 of his RTI application was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Priyash Bhargava and the respondents Shri Ajay, ACP, Shri Ajit Pal Tomar, Inspector, North West District, Ms. Meena, APIO, PHQ, Delhi Police, were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the respondent has not provided any information with respect to point nos. 1 to 7, 8-10 and 12 of the RTI application.
He further stated that the information was denied to him stating that the investigation is in progress, and the disclosure of information would impede the same. He further stated that he has been arrayed as one of the accused in the matter, and is still being denied information. He further stated that the respondent did not provide him the information within time, and hence penalty should be levied upon them.
5. The respondent submitted that at the time of providing reply to the RTI application, investigation was in progress, hence information could not be provided. He further stated that the offence under which the accused was involved was registered under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, for which no notice is issued by them as per the guidelines laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Page 2 of 5 Court of India vide its judgment passed in Arnesh Kumar's case. He further stated that the said offence is non-bailable. He further stated that the appellant had sought copies of all the notices issued by them in the said FIR, which could not be provided. In response to a query, the respondent admitted that the information pertaining to point nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8 of the RTI Act could not have affected the investigation and hence is not exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, the then CPIO erred in interpreting the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same. The respondent further stated that an appropriate reply in response to the point nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the RTI application shall be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the both the parties and perusing the records, agrees with the respondent that the information sought for vide point nos. 4 to 7 of the RTI application is an integral part of the investigation process and hence, its disclosure would have revealed the line of investigation and consequently it would have impeded the process of investigation. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide information on point nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the RTI application to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
7. The Commission also takes cognizance of the respondent's explanation that information on point nos. 4 to 7 of the RTI application was denied due to an error of judgement on the part of the CPIO concerned. However, it cannot be Page 3 of 5 said that the CPIO had acted consciously and deliberately with a malafide intention to provide incorrect or misleading information to the complainant. Further, no penalty can be imposed for wrong judgment. Moreover, in a decision in the matter of Kripa Shanker vs. Central Information Commission- judgment dated 18.09.2017 in W. P. (C) No. 8315/ 2017, the High Court of Delhi held that:
"....13... Indisputably, merely because the view taken by a PIO is not correct, it would not lead to an inference that he is liable to penalty. There may be cases where the PIO is of the view that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act. If this view is subsequently found to be incorrect, it would not necessarily mean that he would be subjected to penalty. The question of imposition of penalty depends on whether the conduct of PIO is reasonable and whether there is any bonafide justification for denial of information; penalty is levied only if it is found that the information was denied without reasonable cause."
In view of the above ratio, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 59. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागव)व) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 24.10.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Addl Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, North West District, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052
2. The First Appellant Authority (FAA) O/o Addl Dy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, North West District, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052
3. Shri Priyash Bhargava Page 5 of 5