Central Information Commission
Anil Garg vs Delhi Police on 17 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/607442
Shri Anil Garg ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, North West District ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.05.2024
Date of Decision : 15.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.12.2023
PIO replied on : 18.01.2024
First Appeal filed on : 21.01.2024
First Appellate Order on : 20.02.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 21.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"The applicant, Anil Garg, was arrested under section 107/151 Cr.P.C., vide DD No.51- A {DD No. 46-A} on dated 10.05.2018 at PS Adarsh Nagar, Delhi by ASI Mahabir Singh. Kindly provide the following information :-
1. What is exact time of arrest?
2. From where he was arrested? Kindly disclose the place of arrest.
3. Whether he was arrested from the alleged spot of incident or inside the police station?
4. Who ordered his arrest?
5. After his arrest, who ordered to take him at Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital for medical?
6. To whom the said orders were given to take him at Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital for medical?
7. Who took him to hospital? Kindly disclose the name of all the police officials who went to hospital alongwith the arrested accused?
8. Whether constable Anil alone took him from police station to hospital or some other police officer also accompanied with them?
9. Whether an entry of Ravangi {departure) and Arrival {aamad} of constable Anil alongwith arrested accused was made in DD Entry register (Roznamcha)?Page 1 of 3
If such entries as stated above are made, disclose the time of their departure and arrival back.
10. As per DD Entry register (Roznamcha), kindly disclose the time of receiving of PCR Call at police station.
11. Who made the PCR Call?
12. From which telephone number the PCR Call was made? Whether the said telephone was a land-line number or a mobile number?
13. Kindly disclose the time of departure (Ravangi) of ASI Mahabir Singh from police station to the alleged spot of incident.
14. Kindly disclose the time of arrival (aamad) of ASI Mahabir Singh from the alleged spot of incident to police station.
15. Whether ASI Mahabir Singh arrived back at PS Adarsh Nagar alongwith the arrested accused?
16. Whether ASI Mahabir Singh arrived back at PS Adarsh Nagar alongwith constable Sandeep only?
17. Whether constable Sandeep also went to hospital alongwith the arrested accused for medical?
18. Whether ASI Mahabir Singh also went to hospital alongwith the arrested accused for medical?"
The CPIO-cum-Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police(I), North-West Distt. Delhi vide letter dated 18.01.2024 replied as under:-
Points Answer
1,3,4-9, 11 The information sought does not come under the purview of
12 &15-18 "INFORMATION" as described in section 2(f) of the RTI Act,
2005 as per the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in writ petition No.419/2007 titled as Dr. Celsa Pinto v/s Goa State Information Commission. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa through its decision has held that the information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "Why", which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification, for a particular thing. The citizens cannot ask the reasons why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification, which are matters within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.
2,10,13&14 As per report obtained from SHO/Adarsh Nagar through ACP/Jahangir Puri/NWD(The principal supplier of the information) that the kalandra under section 107/151 CrP.C. alongwith the all relevant documents was submitted before the Court of the Hon'ble SEM/NWD and the same has been disposed off by the Hon'ble SEM. However, the applicant may approach to the Court of the Hon'ble SEM/NWD for the requisite information.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.01.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.02.2024 held as under:-
Page 2 of 3"4.The undersigned has carefully considered the contention put-forth by the appellant in his online RTI appeal dated 21.01.2024 (received on 22.01.2024), initial online RTI application dated 21.12.2023 (received on 21.12.2023) and information provided by the PIO/NW. District vide letter dated 18.01.2024. Upon consideration, it has been found that the PIO/NWD, Delhi vide letter dated 18.01.2024 has provided the point wise information to the appellant within the stipulated time. Besides this, in the present appeal, appellant has mentioned that "The PIO has failed to apply his mind and has tendered an false, erroneous and unsubstantiated reply". Hence, the appeal of the appellant is remitted back to the PIO/North West District, Delhi with the directions to provide the specific point wise information to the appellant on his online RTI application dated 21.12.2023 within 04 weeks from the receipt of this order after examine his online RTI appeal and application under the provisions of RTI Act-2005, With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is hereby disposed off accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: ACP Praveen Kr.; Shri Vishwas Meena; SI Jitendra Kumar and ASI Vijay Singh were present from North West District of Delhi Police during hearing.
Respondent present during hearing reiterated the aforementioned facts and added that in compliance of the FAA's order, copies of DD Nos. 46A and 51A had been duly furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
In the light of the aforementioned facts, it is noted that the Respondent has submitted documents before the Commission indicating that order passed by the FAA has been duly complied. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case. Considering the fact that the copies of DD Nos. 46A and 51A have been submitted by the Respondent before the Commission, the Respondent is directed to send a copy of the same with the covering letter dated 22.03.2024, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. No further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)