Central Information Commission
Manish Chadha vs Delhi Police on 27 December, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000583
Dated 26.12.2016
Appellant : Shri Manish Chadha,
11/29-B, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110 018.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Delhi Police, O/o PIO/
DCP, West District,
P.S. Rajouri Garden
New Delhi-110 027
Date of Hearing : 08.12.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.06.2015
CPIO's reply : 16.07.2015
First Appeal filed on : 30.07.2015
FAA's Order : 21.08.2015
Second Appeal filed on : 16.11.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Manish Chadha filed an application dated 13.05.2015under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), West District, Rajouri Gardenseeking information on seven points including inquiry report and action taken pertaining to his complaints dated 09.06.2015, 30.05.2015, 20.10.2014, 05.09.2014, 14.08.2014, CIC/SB/A/2015/000583 Page 1 10.10.2014 and 15.09.2014 filed before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Special C.P. Delhi (Vig) and Joint C.P./SWR, Delhi etc.
2. The appellantfiled a second appeal dated 16.11.2015 before the Commission on the grounds that the PIO provided false, manipulated and out of context information and some documents were deliberately photo copied in a manner that the contents were truncated from the sides to make them non- readable and were not fit enough to be produced in a court of law and that theenquiry reports provided were without their enclosures. The appellant states that the FAA upheld the decision of the PIO and was silent on the fact that the PIO did not even ask IBHAS regarding information on point 6. The appellant alleges that the PIO-cum-Addl.D.C.P , West and First Appellate Authority-cum-D.C.P./West deliberately provided destroyed, manipulated and inadequate information to make it unreadable and unfit to be produced as evidence as he has filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) 200 Cr.PC in the court of MM/West, Court No.355, Tis Hazari, Delhi in which Addl.C.P./West, ACP (Vig)/West, ACP Tilak Nagar and other senior police officials are accused and partner in the crime of kidnapping the appellant and snatching his property worth Rs.1.75 crore. The appellant requested the Commission to provide correct, complete and readable information with proper enclosures to him and impose a penalty on the PIO and FAA.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Manish Chadha and the respondent Inspector Raj Kumar, SHO, Tilak Nagar were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that though information was provided to him vide letter dated 16.07.2015 in response to his RTI application, the copies of documents provided (page nos. 21 - 36 of the memo of appeal) were not proper and they were truncated from both the sides and hence, were not readable. The appellant further submitted that on point no.4 of the RTI application, he CIC/SB/A/2015/000583 Page 2 had sought a copy of the enquiry report on his complaint dated 10.10.2014. However, the respondent had provided a copy of the enquiry report in respect of a complaint dated 15.09.2014 made by his mother Smt. Shukla Chadha.
5. The respondent submitted that information was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 16.07.2015. The respondent further submitted that due efforts were made to provide all the documents. However, it could be possible that some of the photo copies of the documents may not have been perfect. The respondent further submitted that required documents(pages 21 - 36of the memo of appeal) will be provided to the appellant free of cost. The respondent submitted thatdue to oversight a copy of the enquiry pertaining to a complaint dated 15.09.2014 was provided to the appellant instead of enquiry report on the complaint filed by the appellant with the Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) dated 10.10.2014.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information sought had been provided to the complainant, though due to oversight, the copy of the enquiry report provided pertained to a different complaint. In view of this, it cannot be said that there was any malafide intention on the part of the respondent to conceal the information from the complainant.It also cannot be said that the CPIO has deliberately obstructed the furnishing of the information with malafide intent. Hence, it would not be appropriate to initiate penalty proceedings against the CPIO.
7. The Commission, however,directs the respondent to provide photo copies of the documents (pages 21 to 36of the memo of the second appeal) to the appellant free of cost. The Commission also directs the respondent to provide a copy of the enquiry report including the annexures as well as the action taken report on the complaint filed by the appellant with Special C.P. Vigilance dated CIC/SB/A/2015/000583 Page 3 10.10.2014. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/SB/A/2015/000583 Page 4