Central Information Commission
Manu Saigal vs Delhi Police on 6 December, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग,मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/647905
Shri Manu Saigal ...शिकायतकर्ता/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, South East Dist. ...प्रतिवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.12.2023
Date of Decision : 06.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2022
PIO replied on : 10.06.2022
First Appeal filed on : 24.06.2022
First Appellate Order on : 13.07.2022
Complaint received on : 01.09.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2022 seeking information on following points:-
1. Please provide true certified copy of document Dispatch No. 487/Cyber/PS/SED Dated 19.02.2022.
2. Please provide tracking report of the documents Dispatch No. 487/Cyber/PS/SED Dated 19.02.2022.
3. Please provide true certified copy of document Dispatch No. 55/Cyber/PS/SED Dated 09.01.2022.
4. Please provide tracking report of the documents Dispatch No. 55/Cyber/PS/SED Dated 09.01.2022
5. Please confirm if complaint 82/Cyber PS/SED dated 29.12.2021 against Manu Saigal was received. If Yes, request to provide copy of said complaint.
6. Please confirm if complaint 86/Cyber PS dated 31.12.2021 against Manu Saigal was received. If Yes, request to provide copy of said complaint.Page 1 of 4
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, South-East Distt. New Delhi vide letter dated 10.06.2022 replied to the Appellant, intimating the information received from the ACP/Kalkaji/Sub- Div. South East Dist. & SHO/Cyber P.S., Distt. New Delhi as under:-
"1-6. In this connection, it is mentioned that the requisite information is available in this office. You may collect the same from this office on any working day (Monday to Friday) alongwith your I.D. Proof between 11 A.M. to 4 P.M. @Rs. 2/- per page and total 05 pages for which you have to deposit Rs. 10/- as per section 4 (a) of The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005."
SHO, PS, Amar Colony sent response dated 11.06.2022 stating as under:
In this regard it is submitted that the requisite information pertain from PS Amar Colony as under:-
1. This requisite information may be sought from PS Cyber South East.
2. DO
3. FIR no. 28/2022 u/s 354C IPC Dated 12/01/2022 PS Amar colony registered and the case file has been transferred to DCP office Faridabad.
4. DO
5. DO
6. Yes, A copy of the same is being enclosed.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 24.06.2022. The FAA/DCP, South-East Distt. New Delhi vide order dated 19.07.2022 held as under:-
"....on point No.01&02 of RTI application, the copy of relevant report has already been provided by PIO/SED. Besides, at point No. 03 to 06, the copy of fresh report provided by ACP/Kalkaji is enclosed herewith (7PP) which is self-explanatory.."
A reply dated 04.07.2022 from PSI, PS, Amar Colony also forms a part of the record, which reveals the following:
1. Complaint no. 82/Cyber PS Dt. 29/12/2021 & Complaint no.
86/Cyber PS Dated 31/12/2021 were received vide dispatch no. 55/Cyber PS Dated 09/01/2022. Copy of the complaints are attached with this reply.
2. DO.
3. FIR no. 28/2022 has been transferred to DCP office Faridabad vide Dispatch no. 3582/SO/DCP/SED, Dated New Delhi 26/04/2022. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Page 2 of 4A written submission has been received from PIO, South East District vide letter dated 04.12.2023 reiterating the response dated 10.06.2022 and FAA's order dated 19.07.2022.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Absent Respondent: ACP, Kalkaji Pradeep Kumar, Insp. Sandeep Kumar, SI Kriti Sikarwar and HC Teekaram were present for South-East Distt, Delhi Police during the hearing.
Decision Upon perusal of the records of the instant Complaint, the only issue which needs to be adjudicated is whether information has been deliberately denied in this case or not. Records submitted before the Commission indicate that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO, well within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. The Complainant has not attended the hearing.
Before concluding the case, the Commission wishes to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that the case does not merit action under Section 18 of the RTI Act, since there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent. Hence the complaint is disposed off as such.
HeeralalSamariya(हीरालालसामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) Page 3 of 4 S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 4 of 4