Central Information Commission
Paramjeet Singh vs Delhi Police on 12 June, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/171884
Paramjeet Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o Dy. Commissioner of ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Police, Delhi Police, Police
Control Room, PCR, Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21.06.2017 FA : 21.08.2017 SA : 12.10.2017
CPIO : 10.08.2017 FAO : 05.09.2017 Hearing : 06.06.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Police, PHQ, New Delhi seeking information on six points pertaining to the PCR Vans stationed in and around the Traffic Circle near Chatta Rail Red Light, Red Fort, including, inter-alia, (i) whether any PCR Van was stationed on 28.06.2015 in and around the Page 1 of 4 above mentioned area, as per the official record, and (ii) details of the staff/officer of PCR Van stationed in the said area including, his name, belt number and duty timings.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought for under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and to impose penalty upon him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri S.K. Sharma, ACP/Southern Range, Delhi Police, PCR, Delhi was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that the appellant had sought sensitive details relating to the PCR vans stationed near Red Fort, New Delhi on 28.06.2015 and 29.06.2015 including, the names and Belt Nos. of the staff of the PCR vans who were on duty on the above said dates and their duty timings. He further clarified that disclosing the location of PCR van can reveal the deployment of PCR vans in and around the highly secured area of Red Fort and thereby, disrupt the law and order as well as security of the area. Hence the disclosure of the information sought for is exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act as it would prejudicially affect the security interests of the State. The respondent, however, admitted that the CPIO, inadvertently, quoted Section 8(1)(e) instead of 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act in his reply Page 2 of 4 which was a bona fide error. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that an appropriate response has not been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to re-examine the appellant's RTI application and provide him an appropriate point-wise response, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 10.06.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) O/o Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Control Room (PCR), Model Town - II, Delhi- 110009.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Control Room (PCR), Model Town - II, Delhi- 110009.
3. Shri Paramjeet Singh Page 4 of 4