Central Information Commission
Shri J.K. Mittal vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (East) on 29 August, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2008/00183, 184, 185, 186 & 187 dated 22-1-08 and
WBA/07/1283 dated 1-11-07 and WB/C/08/614, dated 10-7-08
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri J.K. Mittal
Respondent: Dy. Commissioner of Police (East)
FACTS
These are six appeals and one complaint from Shri J.K. Mittal of Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi on his requests for information from Dy. Commissioner of Police (East):
File No. CIC/WB/C/08/614 In his application of 18-6-08 before us Shri J.K. Mittal's complaint regarding difficulties in filing applications for seeking information in the office of Delhi Police Hqrs. in the Servicing Department under the RTI Act, is as follows:
1. The applicant is first required to go to second floor (S&T branch of the PHQ) where two copies of the computer receipts are given to the applicant;
2. Then, the applicant is required to go at the tenth floor (crime library of the PHQ) where the applicant is required to hand over one computer copy provided to the applicant at the second floor and RTI entry is made;
3. Thereafter, the applicant is required to go at the eighth floor (account branch of the PHQ) and required to submit the second copy of the computer receipt provided to the applicant at the second floor and also required to deposit the required fees i.e. Rs. 10/- for the purpose of RTI application, where only one copy of the receipt for the payment is given;
4. Thereafter, the applicant is required to approach at the seventh floor of the Police Headquarter where the RTI application is accepted, however, the person who receives the RTI application in Police Headquarter insists for the copy of the receipt for the payment of Rs. 10/-
deposited in the Accounts Department whereas as mentioned above, the Department only generate one copy of the receipt which the applicant has to keep for his future records and reference. Therefore, the applicant is 1 forced to come out from the Police Headquarter to have a photocopy of the receipt and for that he has to cross a distance of more than 1 km across the road to have the photocopies of the receipt of Rs. 10/- and then come back at the seventh floor of the police Headquarter to submit the RTI application along with photocopy of the receipt of the payment made for.
5. In the above process just to file a simple RTI application, the applicant or his representative is required to spend about 2 hours and because of so much of harassment caused to the applicant, he is dissuaded for filing the RTI application and the very objective of the RTI application is defeated.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, you are requested to take a serious note on the above mentioned practice adopted by the Polic3e Headquarter in Delhi for accepting the application under the RTI Act, 2005 for seeking the information by the citizen of India and issue appropriate directions to simplify the procedure for accepting the application on Single Window Basis and to issue two copies of the receipt for the payment of fee, so that one copy could be kept by the applicant and another could be annexed with the application for seeking information."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00183 In his request of 30-10-07 Shri J.K. Mittal has sought the following information from the PIO, O/o DCP (East):
"1. How many complaints the East District Police have received against the applicant in the last 5 years? Give date wise details along with diary nos., nature of each complaint, the names of the officers conducted the inquiry, and the actions taken on such complaints separately for each such complaint.
2. Which law debarred the Police for giving information to the applicant about the complaint, if any, against him?
3. Are the Police not duty bound in such cases to disclose the information to the person against whom the complaint is being made, if yes, why Police is not disclosing the facts of the complaint to the applicant? Whether the Police are hiding the truth to save the corrupt officials and refuse to take action against the law violators?"
To this he received a response point-wise on 14-11-07. However, not satisfied with this response he moved first appeal on 20-12-07 which, 2 however, was rejected on 17-1-08 by Jt. Commissioner of Police Shri Ajay Kashyap, 1st Appellate Authority on grounds of being time barred.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00184 In this case appellant sought the following information on 17-10-07:
"1. The DCP (East) in the letter No. 3705, dated 1.10.2007 informed to the applicant that "daily 10-15 visit your office and they park their vehicles in front house of the complainant and whenever the objects you threat to heat him", on what basis the DCP (East) made the such averments? Whether he has verified the authenticity of such averments? The applicant is also seeking information about the dates when such incidents happened, the vehicle nos. and name of the persons who visited the applicant on those dates, the exact places where they had parked the vehicles and what action was taken by the DCP (East) in this matter? If the DCP (East) don't have such information then why he is indulging in baseless allegations and what is his motive and objective.
2. The DCP (East) in the letter No. 3705, dated 1.10.2007 informed to the applicant that the he "threat to beat" some one daily. When the DCP (East) knows that the applicant "threat to beat" someone daily what action he has taken against the applicant? If no action has been taken, what are reasons thereof? If the information provided by him is false, then why has such allegation so in the said letter? Whether the Policemen posted on road near the house of the applicant have notice all such incidents every day and reported to DCP (East)? Give details.
3. Why the DCP (East) is not visiting the areas (Priyadarshini Vihar) near the House of the applicant to see the business activities are going on illegally and in gross violation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and number of commercial vehicles are parked all the times? The reason is that as held by the Hon'ble High Court in the Dr. Kapil Sethi v Dr. Ajay Gambhit and Ors n LPA 44/2006 decided on 12.1.2006 "this is usually done in collusion with the authorities concerned", therefore, he has made the baseless allegation to protect the law violators and is creating all fictitious complaints to save illegal activities for his own vested interest.
4. Why the office of the DCP (East) creating fictitious complaints against the applicant and why he fears of informing to the applicant the name of the complainants, date of complaints, time of all incidents, when he 3 confirmed that the applicant "threat to beat" someone daily, the DCP (East) motive appears to protect the corrupt officials as the action of the applicant has lead to the big hole in the pockets of the corrupt police and MCD officials?
5. Whether an inquiry can be conducted against a person without telling him the charges, name of the complainant, date of incidence, and without even recording his statement, without visiting the places, etc? If not, how the East District Police got conducted an inquiry against the applicant (as informed by the DCP (East) in letter No. 3705, dated 1.10.2007) without giving such information to the applicant? Give entire details of the inquiry officers, the dates when such inquiry got conducted, the persons who were integrated, and brief of such inquiry report.
6. The MCD has informed to the applicant that around the Building (A_15) in which the applicant resides, the commercial activities are being run in gross violation of the order of the Supreme Court (many of them sealed on 5.10.2007). Why the office of the DCP (East) has eyes on the applicant house and his professional activities and not on such illegal commercial activities? What does the DCP (East) want from the applicant who is not taken any actions against the law violators but making false allegations against the applicant?
7. How did the DCP (East) find construction on 6th floor of the Building (A-15) which has only three floors, whereas the Construction going on in adjacent two plots/ house/ buildings, he or any of his officers could not see?
8. Whether the Delhi Police is planning to kill the applicant or his family by fake encounter, or intend to extort the money by giving threat of false complaints or framing false cases?"
PIO's reply again sought to answer these questions point-wise on 14- 11-07 as follows:
"1. These are not the averments made by the undersigned but these are allegations made against you by a resident of Priyadarshini Vihar in his complaint. These were conveyed to you vide letter under reference.
2. As above.
3. No information is sought as defined in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005.4
4. As you have already informed that the name and other particulars of the complainant can not be disclosed as the same are exempted from disclosures under section 8 (1)
(g) & 11 of the RTI Act 2005.
5. Enquiry was conducted on the complaints against you and the complaints filed by you. Further details can not be disclosed as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (g) and 11 of the RTI Act 2005.
6. No information is sought as defined in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005.
7. No information is sought as defined in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005.
8. No information is sought as defined in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005.
While in this case appellant moved his first appeal on 20-12-07, this, too, was dismissed as being time barred. His prayer before us, therefore, is as below:
"(A) pass the appropriate order for quashing the Order No. 37/Appeal/RTI/NDR, dated 17.01.2008 and give direction to the Respondents/ PIO to provide the desired information forthwith and give the reason for not taking the action under the law;
(B) declare that information sought by the appellant is not exempted under section 8 (1) (g) or section 11 of the RTI Act 2005;
(C) declare the all the information sought by the appellant is the 'information' under the RTI Act, 2005;
(D) take appropriate action against the responsible officer in accordance with law including imposing penalty prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005;
(E) pass such other order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case."
The grounds for this have been set out in Para (f) of grounds for appeal as follows:
5"(f) Because the Ld. First Appellate Authority has not given the reason that how the appeal was time barred and did not consider the facts, as the appellant received the reply from PIO on 19.11.2007 and appeal was filed on 20.12.2007, whereas as per t he settled law and General Clauses Act, the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded and further ,reckoning the period of limitation for filing the appeal the date relevant is the date of knowledge of the order/ reply to the appellant Manoharlal G. Jeweller v Gold Control Administrator 1988 (35) ELT 603 (Tribunal). The appellant most respectfully submits that even though said reply was received in the residence cum office of the appellant on 19.11.2007 but came in the knowledge of the appellant only on 20.11.2007 as on 19.11.2007 after noon, the appellant was away to address to the Chartered Accountants in the conference organized by them in Delhi. Therefore, it is submitted that considering above mentioned facts, the appeal filed by the appellant was within the time granted under the Act."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00185 In this case the application of 17-10-07 comprised of questions as below:
"1. The DCP (East) in his letter No. 3705, dated 1.10.2007, informed to the applicant that "there is no specific section of law under which the police conduct an enquiry into a complaint", therefore, whether the East District Police is not governed by any law and acting without any authority of law and he is not aware of the legal provisions under which they are performing their duties?
2. Whether DCP (East) or the Police officer are holding public offices, if yes, whether they are performing any of the duties which are not governed by the law of this land?"
These again were replied on 14-11-07:
"1. No information is sought as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005;
2. Yes. Further no information is sought as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
As per Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, you may file an appeal before Shri Ajay Kashyap, Jt. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, Police Hqrs. Delhi within 30 days from the issue of this letter, if you are not satisfied with the above reply."6
Appellant moved his first appeal dated 20-12-07 only to find that this was refused as being time barred by an order of 17-1-08. Prayer of appellant before us in this case is as below:
"(A) pass the appropriate order for quashing the Order No. 37/Appeal/RTI/NDR, dated 17.01.2008 and give direction to the Respondents/ PIO to provide the desired information forthwith and give the reason for not taking the action under the law;
(B) take appropriate action against the responsible officer in accordance with law including imposing penalty prescribed under the RTI Act 2005;
The grounds for this prayer are the same as in file no.CIC/WB/A/2008/00184 File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00186 In this case the request of Shri J.K. Mittal dated 17-10-07 was as below:
"1. Whether DCP (East) has information that some policemen are on duty on road near House A-15, Priyadarshini Vihar? If yes, give the names of all the Policemen who have been put on such duty since 18.1.2007 till date, under which Police station they fall and what are their duties.
2. Whether such Policemen ever reported any incident as reported by the DCP (East) in Para 3 of his letter No. 3705, dated 1.10.2007, if yes, give full details and what action has been taken by the Police, if not how the DCP (East) came to know about the baseless allegation he has made against the applicant instead of providing information as desired by the applicant?
3. Whether such Policemen ever reported about the illegal parking of commercial vehicles in full public view, illegal commercial activities and constructions ,around the places where they have been performing their duties, if not why and if yes, why DCP (East) has not taken any action on such reporting?
4. Whether East District Police have posted the policemen on road near House A-15, Priyadarshini Vihar to protect the interest of those who illegally parked the commercial vehicles and carrying on illegal commercial activities and constructions around the places where they performed their duties, if not, whether they have ever stopped such 7 activities or reported such matter to the higher authorities, give details thereof?
5. Why the East District Police of Delhi Police is taking interest in the family of the applicant and his office when in the same building (A-15) where he resides, many other offices are being run besides shops/ offices in all the buildings on main road of Priyadarshini Vihar in full public view and many of them have been sealed by the MCD on 5.10.2007?
6. Why the Policemen who were accompanied the sealing team of the MCD on 5.10.2007 have used the name of the applicant for such sealing action by MCD, give names of all those the policemen who were on duty with the sealing team of the MCD?"
Again the response he received on 14-11-07 was point-wise as below:
"1. The area of Priyadarshini Vihar falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station Shakarpur and main road in front of your house falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station Preet Vihar. Policemen remain on duty in the area. The remaining information can not be provided to you.
2. You were informed vide this office letter dated 1.10.2007 that a complaint from a resident of Priyadarshini Vihar was received against you alleging therein running of office from your residence and your clients parked their vehicles in front of his house and whenever he objects, you threat to beat him. It is gist of allegations made by the complainant against you, as wanted by you in your application dated 11.9.2007 submitted to PHQ. These are not allegations made by the undersigned. An enquiry into the matter was got conducted through SHO/Shakarpur and the same has been filed.
3. Whenever any report about the illegal parking of vehicles/ commercial vehicles is received or come to the notice of the police, necessary legal action is taken.
4. Whenever any illegal activity come to the notice of police the same is reported to the concerned authority for necessary action. Details of the same can not be provided to you as the same is exempted from disclosure under section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The East District police is not taking interest in your family/ business or any other person's family/ business. Matter regarding sealing/ desealing of shops/ offices is the work of MCD/DDA.8
6. On dated 5.10.2007, a sealing programme was conducted by the MCD officials in the area of Priyadarshini Vihar and as per their requirements police protection was provided to them for peaceful sealing programme only. Name of the policemen deputed for such duties can not be disclosed."
This matter again went in first appeal on 20-12-07 to bring the same result as the above appeals on 17-1-08.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00187 In this case the request of the appellant in his application of 17-10-07 was as below:
"1. Why the DCP (East) in his letter No. 3704, dated 1.10.2007 has denied that no letter for Police Protection was received by his office from the applicant, whereas on 31.8.2007 his office has duly acknowledged the receipt of letter dated 31.8.2007 from the applicant for specific request for police protection. The applicant seeks diary no. of such letter and the action taken on it?
2. Why the DCP (East) in his letter No. 3704, dated 1.10.2007 has directed the applicant to "obtain the copy of criteria/policy" for police protection from Police Hdqrs, whereas in the same letter he has also mentioned that the application of the applicant for seeking above information was received by him from Police Head Quarter only? Why the DCP (East) failed to provide the information in spite of the specific direction from the PHQ through letter dated 11.9.2007 for providing the requisites information?"
The point-wise reply received on 14-11-07 is as follows:
"1. Your complaint dated 31.8.2007 regarding police protection was received vide Diary No. 7253, dated 31.8.2007. However, this complaint along with your other complaints against the members of RWA, Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi was sent to the SHO/ Shakarpur through ACP/ Preet Vihar for enquiry and report. Your case was not found fit for providing you police protection as already informed to you. As your case was not found fit, your application was not sent to the concerned branch. Hence, the reply based on that branch was communication to you, which is regretted.
2. DCP/ Headquarters is being requested to provide you the copy of the criteria/ policy regarding providing police protection to a person."9
The first appeal filed on 20-12-07 brought an identical response to the above appeals as follows:
"I have examined all the relevant record available in file. After examining the relevant record I find that the appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 20.12.2007 beyond the time limit of 30 days as prescribed under section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is, therefore, rejected, being time barred."
The prayer before us is, therefore, similar to that in other cases held time barred.
File No. CIC/WB/A/07/1283 In this case by application of 21-5-07 appellant Shri J.K. Mittal sought the following information from the PIO, DCP (East) Shahdara:
1. "Whether the statement of said ACP that some persons have filed the complaint against the family of the applicant is true, if yes, give the details and the nature of complaint, when it was filed and the list of persons who have filed such complaint and what inquiry was conducted by the Police and the result of such inquiry. The appellant is also seeking the copy of such complaint and copy of inquiry report of the Police?
2. Whether said ACP was right in calling to the applicant about the letter dated 12.5.2007 'Strictly Confidential' letter sent to JCP (New Delhi) and what was his purpose to call to the applicant?
Whether he has received said letter through official channel?
3. Whether said ACP was right in saying that many persons have filed the complaint against the applicant's family? If yes, then whether any case has been registered so far? If yes, give the FIR No. and the name of the Police Station, where the case is registered and under which section case has been registered.
4. Whether it is true that said ACP received 150 written complaints every day? If not, how many written complaints he received every day on the basis of average of last six months?
5. Whether police can permit to make indecent remarks against the applicant family and ACP is not bound to act on the information in his knowledge about the abused against the applicant family and his wife?
6. Whether any complaint has been received by the Police regarding the recent incidents of "two robberies" and "two chain snatching" have been happened in the Priyadarshini Vihar as referred in the newsletter of May 2007 issued by the Priyadarshini Vihar Residents Welfare Association? If yes, give 10 details of the same, when these incidents were happened, when the complaints were filed, who are the complainants? Whether any FIR was registered in these connections, if yes, give FIR No., date and thee relevant sections in which such FIR registered, if not the reason for the same. If no complaint received, then what action police propose to circulate false news about the crime and crate phobia among the residents?
7. Whether any letters have been given to the DCP (East) on 3rd may 2007 "regarding the deteriorating law and order situation" in the Priyadarshini Vihar as referred in the newsletter of May 2007 issued by the Priyadarshini Vihar Residents Welfare Association? If yes, give details about such letters and whether Police found substance in the same on the basis of the complaints and FIR lodged with the concerned police station about the incidents reported from the Priyadarshini Vihar in the last 2 years. The applicant is also seeking copies of such letters given to the DCP (East) on 3rd May 2007.
8. Whether letter submitted on 3rd May 2007 to the DCP as referred in the newsletter of May 2007 issued by the Priyadarshini Vihar Residents Welfare Association about "Regarding the deteriorating law and order situation" in the Priyadarshini Vihar or it was pretended to complaint against the applicant family, if yes, what type of complaint has been made against the applicant or his family and the inquiry conducted by the police, give full details?
9. How many incidents of crime have been reported from the Residents of A-17 to A-28 of Priyadarshini Vihar in the last two years?
10. Whether residents of A-17 to A-28 of Priyadarshini Vihar have made any complaint to the Police regarding any kind of crime in the last two years and how may FIR were registered on the basis of their complaints in the last two years? The applicant seek complete details of the complaint so made like date, nature of complaints, diary no. of the complaint recorded in the Police Station and the FIR No. and the relevant sections under which such complaints/ FIR were registered.
11. How many incidents of crime have been reported from Priyadarshini Vihar in the last two years? The applicant seeks full details separately from block 'A' and Block 'B' like date, nature of complaints, diary no. of the complaint recorded in the Police Station? The applicant also seeks how many FIR have been registered by the Police on the basis of such complaints in the last two years separately from Block 'A' and Block 'B'.
1112. Whether the police agree to the statement made by the some persons to meet the DCP on 3rd May 2007 "regarding the deteriorating law and order situation" in the Priyadarshini Vihar, if yes, what is the basis for the same? The applicant also seek comparative list (on the basis of nature of crime) of last five years for the crime reported from the A Block of the Priyadarshini Vihar.
13. The applicant made a complaint 3rd May to the Shakarpur Police Station and copy to the DCP (East) (copy enclosed) which was duly acknowledged on 3rd May and 4th May 2007 respectively in their offices, what action has been taken on the same, and give the name of the inquiry officer and the persons involved in the incidents and the name of persons visited applicant house and whose instance they visited and what was their motive?
14. Whether the Police have given any directions to keep any of the Iron Gate closed which are installed in the Priyadarshini Vihar? If yes, which are those gates, what are those directions, to whom such permission has been granted?
15. Whether in the Priyadarshini Vihar any security guard is employed by the RWA of the Priyadarshini Vihar? If yes, do the police have the list of such security guard and time of their duties and the agencies form they have been hired? If yes, give details?
16. The ACP (Preet Vihar) has claimed that RWA of the Priyadarshini Vihar has employed the security guard, whether the police have verified the details from the account of that RWA which does no spent even a Naya Paisa on security guard?
17. Whether the Police has completed its report with civic authorities regarding gate on public land as per directions of the Jt. CP/NDR, if yes, provide the copy of such report to the applicant, if not ,why there is delay?"
To this he received on 23-6-07 point-wise reply dated 19-6-07. He then moved his first appeal on 22-6-07, upon which Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Appellate Authority and Jt. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range in his order dated 30-7-07 directed as follows:
"The PIO/ East District has clarified that correct and information permissible under RTI Act, 2005 was provided to the appellant within the stipulated time. Name of the complainant and copy of complaint was correctly denied as the document sought is exempted from disclosure of information u/ 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005 and third party interest is involved. Since enquiry into the complaint against the appellant is pending enquiry, divulging 12 name of the complainant would be against the interest of complainant. As regards number of complaints received in the office of ACP/ Preet Vihar is concerned, no specific number of complaints can be given and being an administrative matter, the matter has no concern with the complaint. Regarding the complaint dated 12.5.07 of the appellant, the same was marked to DCP/ East District for enquiry. No derogatory remarks against appellant or his wife in the presence of ACP/ Preet Vihar. No complaint from the residents that they have been terrorized or under phobia has been received in East District. The alleged newsletter contains the minutes of the meeting and represents expression of the residents, which does not require police action. In last two years only one case vide FIR No. 291/07 u/s 380/34 IPC was reported on 10.4.07 by the residents of A-17 to A-28, Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi. About the false complaint of deteriorating law and order situation in Priyadarshini Vihar, it was only the apprehension of the residents which they have tried to bring into the notice of police. No police action is warranted. The guidelines regarding erection of iron gates has been discussed with MCD officials the RWA has been requested for proper consideration and compliance. I also find the PIO/ east District has allowed some documents sought vide application dated 21.5.07 at Sl. Nos. 12 &15, the same can be obtained against a fess of Rs. 2/- per page. I have asked PIO/ East to make the calculation as envisaged u/s 7(3) of RTI Act, 2005 and apprise you of the same. As regards the documents sought relating to third party, the PIO/ East District is being asked to issue notices to the third party as envisaged u7/s 11 (1) of RTI Act, 2005 and apprise you the outcome of the notices in due course.
However, during personal hearing, the appellant reiterated the allegations that the Gate in question is still not opened and it is locked and the residents are parking vehicles causing hindrance to access through the Gate. The matter has already been disposed off in the appeal is Smt. Vandana Mittal."
Appellant Shri J.K. Mittal's prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
"(A) pass the appropriate order for quashing the Order dated 30.7.2007 and give direction to the Respondents/ PIO to provide the desired information forthwith and give the reason for not taking the action under the law;
(F) declare that information sought by the appellant was related to appellant life or liberty under section 7 (1) of the RTI Act 2005;
(G) declare that copies of complaint, statements and investigation report as sought by the appellant is not 13 exempted u/s 8 (1) (g) "& (h) or section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005;
(H) take appropriate action against the responsible officer in accordance with law including imposing penalty prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005;"
This appeal has been filed on the basis of questions of law which have been described in the appeal on the rights of an applicant under the RTI Act and the duties of respondents. He also disputed the action of the 1st Appellate Authority in disposal of four separate appeals through one decision.
The appeal was heard on 14-8-2008. Following are present.
Appellant Shri J.K. Mittal.
Respondents Shri Kewal Singh, Addl Commissioner of Police, HQ. Shri R. S. Ghuman, DCP, Legal Cell.
Shri Ganga Sahai, ACP/HQ/East.
Shri Kewal Krishan, Sub Inspector.
With regard to file No. WB/C/08/614 Shri Kewal Singh, Addl Commissioner of Police, HQ. submitted that all facilities required to process RTI applications have indeed been provided but that the Department was willing to examine the areas of improvement. On the remaining Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2008/00183, 184, 185, 186 & 187 in which the appeals have not been heard as being time barred, Shri R.S. Ghuman, DCP, Legal Cell agreed that the 1st Appellate Authority is ready to condone the delay and proceed with the hearing.
With regard to file No. WBA/07/1283 appellant submitted that the orders of Appellate Authority have not been complied with, in that the calculation required under Section 7 (3) of the RTI Act had not been intimated and he had no information regarding documents sought from the third party. He also alleged that he suspected that an attempt is being made by the Police to falsely implicate him in the cases in question.
14The issue in this matter is at heart the question of whether the document sought by appellant is exempted from disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (g), given that the inquiry is still proceeding.
DECISION NOTICE File No. WB/C/08/614 In this case Delhi Police may consider replicating the method adopted for servicing RTI applications by the Army. Maj. Manisha Gahlot, GSO-1 (Legal), RTI Cell, IHQ of MOD (Army) Room No. G-6,7,8, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi may be contacted for her advice in this regard. This direction is given u/s 19 (8) (a) of the RTI Act to ensure that compliance with the provisions of this Act basic to which his servicing of RTI application is ensured.
Shri Kewal Singh, Addl. C.P. Police Hqrs. will at the conclusion of this exercise, report the steps taken for improvement to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, CIC by 30th September, 2008 for the attention of this Commission.
File Nos. WB/A/2008/00183 to 187In all these cases since it is agreed that the 1st Appellate Authority will hear these cases which have not so far been heard, all these cases are remanded to 1st Appellate Authority Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Jt. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range to be heard and disposed of within 15 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice.
File No. WBA/07/1283:
In this case exemption from disclosure has been sought u/s 8 (1) (g). However, other than stating that the matter is still under investigation Shri Kannan Jegadeesan, IPS, O/o DCP (East Distt.) Delhi has not given any reason how such disclosure would so endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement. In the judgment of Ravinder Bhat J. in WP 15 No. 3114/2007, Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors it has been clarified in a definitive judgement that even where exemption is sought u/s 8 (1) this has to be treated as an exception whereas the Rule is disclosure. This matter is, therefore remanded for further examination by 1st Appellate Authority Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Jt. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range who will examine in what way such a disclosure will in fact so endanger the life and physical safety of any person. Insofar as the plea is concerned that the information cannot be given because the investigation is still in process, such a plea is unacceptable in light of the fact that at no stage of the processing of this application has Section 8 (1) (h) been relied upon for seeking exemption from disclosure. If, therefore, it cannot in the opinion of First appellate Authority be established that such disclosure will indeed endanger the life of personal liberty of any individual or any witness the information sought will be disclosed in full. The appeal may be disposed of within 15 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. It is clarified however that if not satisfied with the decision of 1st appellate authority it will be open to appellant Shri Mittal to move his second appeal on the information provided u/s 19(3).
The Appeals/Complaint are disposed of accordingly.
Announced in the hearing with regard to all but File No. CIC/WB/A/07/1283 which was reserved, the complete decision announced in open chambers on this 29th day of August 2008.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 29-8-2008 16 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 29-8-2008 17