Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Delhi Police on 27 February, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644639 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644192
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648835 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644463
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/645862 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644460
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648833 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644445
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648831 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613560
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648826 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613561
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/659609 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613565
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/659616 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607295
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607365
Shri Varun Krishna ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
East District
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 15.02.2023
Date of Decision : 27.02.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on dated
644639 23.07.2021 24.08.2021 25.08.2021 23.09.2021 23.09.2021
648835 21.07.2021 18.08.2021 25.08.2021 24.09.2021 18.10.2021
645862 24.07.2021 24.08.2021 25.08.2021 23.09.2021 29.09.2021
648833 24.07.2021 23.08.2021 25.08.2021 24.09.2021 18.10.2021
648831 24.07.2021 23.08.2021 25.08.2021 24.09.2021 18.10.2021
648826 24.07.2021 23.08.2021 25.08.2021 24.09.2021 18.10.2021
659609 30.09.2021 25.10.2021 01.11.2021 29.11.2021 11.12.2021
659616 25.09.2021 26.10.2021 01.11.2021 29.11.2021 11.12.2021
644192 20.07.2021 16.08.2021 16.08.2021 20.09.2021 21.09.2021
644463 05.07.2021 30.06.2021 05.08.2021 08.09.2021 22.09.2021
644460 01.07.2021 04.08.2021 05.08.2021 08.09.2021 22.09.2021
644445 14.06.2021 29.06.2021 03.08.2021 08.09.2021 22.09.2021
Page 1 of 25
613560 06.02.2021 06.03.2021 06.03.2021 07.04.2021 12.04.2021
613561 06.02.2021 06.03.2021 06.03.2021 07.04.2021 12.04.2021
613565 06.02.2021 06.03.2021 06.03.2021 07.04.2021 12.04.2021
607295 18.12.2020 12.01.2021 12.01.2021 10.02.2021 01.03.2021
607365 17.12.2020 14.01.2021 15.01.2021 13.02.2021 02.03.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644639 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.07.2021 seeking information on following 07 points:-
The PIO vide online reply dated 24.08.2021 intimated as under:-Page 2 of 25
1 to 7 - The asked email dated 19.06.2021 is still pending enquiry from ACP/P.G. Cell, East District, Delhi. Hence, the requisite information cannot be provided at this stage.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 23.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648835 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2021 seeking information on following 05 points:-
The PIO vide online reply dated 18.08.2021 intimated as under:-
1 to 4 - Copy of enquiry report on the asked email of dated 08.01.2021 is enclosed herewith.
5- N/A Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.08.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated Page 3 of 25 24.09.2021 directed the PIO/East to reconsider the RTI application and provide a fresh reply to the Appellant within 10 working days.
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO/Addl. DCP-I, East District vide letter dated 30.09.2021 replied as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/645862 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2021 seeking information on following 06 points:-Page 4 of 25
The PIO vide online reply dated 24.08.2021 intimated as under:-
1to 6- The asked Email dated 09.06.2021 is still pending enquiry from ACP/P.G. Cell, East District, Delhi. Hence, the requisite information cannot be provided at this stage.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.08.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 23.09.2021 directed the PIO/East to reconsider the RTI application and provide fresh reply to the Appellant within 10 working days. Reply provided in compliance with the above direction is not available on the Commission's record.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648833 (5) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648831 (6) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648826 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2021 seeking information on following 06 points:-
Page 5 of 25The PIO vide online reply dated 23.08.2021 intimated as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.08.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 24.09.2021 directed the PIO/East to reconsider the RTI application and provide fresh reply to the Appellant within 10 working days.Page 6 of 25
In compliance with the FAA's order, the PIO/Addl. DCP-I, East District vide letter dated 30.09.2021 replied as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(7) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/659609 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.09.2021 seeking information on following 06 points:-Page 7 of 25
The PIO /Addl. DCP-II, East District vide letter dated 25.10.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.11.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 29.11.2021 directed the PIO/East to reconsider the RTI application and provide a fresh reply to the Appellant within 10 working days.
In compliance with the FAA's reply, the CPIO/Addl. DCP-I, East District vide letter dated 01.12.2021 replied as under:-
Page 8 of 25 Page 9 of 25Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(8) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/659616 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.09.2021 seeking information on following 07 points:-Page 10 of 25
The PIO vide online reply dated 26.10.2021 intimated as under:-
1. In this regard an enquiry report was prepared and same was already provided to you. Which is enclosed by yourself in the present RTI application.
2. HAC Branch/East District.
3. In this regard please see yourself E-mail's and RTI DEPOL record vide No.DEPOL/A/E/21/01458,01484,01487,01471 & 01411 in this regard just like your email of dated June 22.2021.
You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
"We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right.............Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act"
4. Not applicable in view of point No 3.
5. Ms. Priyanka Kashyap, IPS, DCP/East District, Delhi.
6. The requisite information does not relate to East District.
7. N/A Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.11.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 29.11.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 11 of 25Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(9) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644192 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2021 seeking information on following 06 points:-
The PIO vide online reply dated 16.08.2021 intimated as under:-
This is in reference to your series of similar online RTI applications DEPOL/R/E/21/05388+05387+05386 dated 19.07.2021 & DEPOL/R/E/21/05442+05441+05440 dated 20.07.2021 mainly seeking clarifications on different sentences used in inputs enclosed by the PIO in response to your earlier RTI application. PIO can provide information only Page 12 of 25 which exists on record, and is not supposed to provide clarification/interpretation/personal opinion or to prove any aspect referred in a single RTI application and/or through so many RTI applications similar in nature. PIO can provide information only which exists on record. You have been provided so many responses in past with cited court-verdicts including on misuse of RTI Act which otherwise are also quite elaborative to your RTI queries. Responding to your too many RTI applications now filed in addition to your so many earlier RTI applications filed regularly is in direct contradiction of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011).
Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(10) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644463 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.07.2021 seeking information on following 07 points:-Page 13 of 25
The PIO/Addl. DCP-I, East District vide letter dated 05.08.2021 replied as under:-
1. You may obtain the copy of Circular order No. 17/2016 from this office after depositing Rs. 12/- for 06 pages @ Rs. 2/- per page as prescribed under RTI Rules-2012 on any working day (Monday to Friday) between 11.00 AM to 02.00 PM within 30 days from the issue of this letter. 2 to 6. The requisite information does not relate from East District. 7 HAR Branch.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.08.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated Page 14 of 25 08.09.2021 directed the PIO/East District to reconsider the RTI application and provide a fresh reply to the Appellant within 10 working days.
In compliance with the FAA's order, the PIO/Addl. DCP-I, East District vide letter dated 13.09.2021 replied as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(11) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644460 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2021 seeking information on following 05 points:-Page 15 of 25
The PIO /Addl. DCP-I, East District vide letter dated 04.08.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 5. No specific record pertaining to complaints filed under Section 154(3) CrPC is being maintained in this office. Hence, the requisite information may be treated as nil.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.08.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 08.09.2021 directed the PIO/East to reconsider the RTI application and provide a fresh reply to the Appellant within 10 working days.
In compliance with the FAA's order, the PIO/Addl. DCP-I, East District vide letter dated 13.09.2021 replied as under:-
Page 16 of 25Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(12) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644445 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.06.2021 seeking information on following 05 points:-Page 17 of 25
The PIO/Addl. DCP, HDQRS vide letter dated 29.06.2021 intimated as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 08.09.2021 directed the PIO/East to reconsider the RTI application and provide a fresh reply to the Appellant within 10 working days.
In compliance with the FAA's reply, the CPIO/Addl. DCP-I, East District vide letter dated 13.09.2021 replied as under:-
Page 18 of 25Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(13) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613560 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2021 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
The CPIO sent online reply dated 06.03.2021 stating as under:-
1 to 4. A complaint of Sh. Devendra Prasad Yadav was received at P.S. New Ashok Nagar against you and the enquiry into the matter is still pending with the E.O/HC Kuldeep Singh of P.S. New Ashok Nagar. Hence, the requisite information cannot be provided to you at this stage.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.03.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 07.04.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(14) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613561 Page 19 of 25 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2021 seeking information on the following 03 points:-
The CPIO sent online reply dated 06.03.2021 stating as under:-
i to iv & 3. A complaint of Sh. Devendra Prasad Yadav was received at P.S. New Ashok Nagar against you and the enquiry into the matter is still pending with the E.O/HC Kuldeep Singh of P.S. New Ashok Nagar. Hence, the requisite information cannot be provided to you at this stage.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.03.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 07.04.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(15) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613565 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2021 seeking information on following 04 points:-Page 20 of 25
The CPIO vide online reply dated 06.03.2021 intimated the Appellant as under:-
1 to 4 -. A complaint of Sh. Devendra Prasad Yadav was received at P.S. New Ashok Nagar against you and the enquiry into the matter is still pending with the E.O/HC Kuldeep Singh of P.S. New Ashok Nagar. Hence, the requisite information cannot be provided to you at this stage.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.03.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 07.04.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(16) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607295 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.12.2020 seeking information on following 05 points:-
The CPIO vide online reply dated 12.01.2021 intimated the Appellant as under:-
1 to 5 Your complaint is still pending for enquiry with EO/HC Kuldeep of PS-
New Ashok Nagar. Hence, the remaining information sought by you cannot be provided at this stage as the same is exempted U/s 8(1) (g) (h) of RTI Act-2005.
Page 21 of 25Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 13.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(17) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607365 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2020 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
The CPIO vide online reply dated 14.01.2021 intimated the Appellant as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.01.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 13.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 22 of 25
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the hearing, while the Appellant has sent an email dated 25.01.2023 expressing his inability to attend the hearing and seeking that the aforementioned appeals be re-scheduled for hearing on 15.02.2023.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. At the outset he stated that the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in High Court of Madras vs CIC WPC 26781/2013 is inapplicable to the instant matters. He stated that the observation in para 24 of the judgement was given in the context of the query "copies of several petitions/ appeals filed by the second respondent and also the file notings thereof" whereas his queries were different. Citing the RTI application under consideration in Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644639, the Appellant argued that the reply provided was not satisfactory. He also argued that compliance made with the order of the FAA in Second Appeal Nos CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648835, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648833, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648831, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648826, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/659609, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644463, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644460 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644445 was unsatisfactory.
The Appellant also argued that in CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/659609, the reply provided in compliance with the FAA's order pertained to his email dated 08.09.2021 whereas in the RTI application he was seeking information regarding his complaint u/s 154 (3) CrPC vide email dated 30.08.2021. He further argued that the data pertaining to Section 154 (3) complaints should be maintained by the public authority. Furthermore, no compliance of the FAA's order in Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/645862 was made. Regarding Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/659616, he sought a direction for disclosure of information on points 1 to 3. In Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644192 he prayed for disclosure of information on point 5. He also argued that demand of photocopy fee after the stipulated time period was not justified. Regarding CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644460 he pointed out that information provided on point 4 was not satisfactory as the name and designation of officials responsible for non disposal of complaints u/s 154 (3) were not provided. In CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644445 he pointed out that the inquiry report provided did not corroborate with his complaint.
With regard to CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613560, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613561, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613565, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607295 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607365, he argued that copy of the complaint filed against him by Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav was not provided. In addition he referred to point 4 of his RTI application in Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607365 and argued that no information was provided by the EDMC on his grievance primarily regarding removal of encroachment by a Dhaba on the pavement near New Ashok Nagar.
Page 23 of 25The Respondent represented by Shri Pankaj Sharma, ACP, East District and Shri Rahul Kumar, SI, PS New Ashok Nagar participated in the hearing through video conference.
Shri Sharma stated that a revised reply would be provided to the Appellant in Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644639 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644460. Also, reply provided in compliance with the FAA's order would be again provided to the Appellant in Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/645862.
Regarding Second Appeal Nos CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648835, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648833, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648831, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/648826, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/659609, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/659616, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644192 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644463 he stated that the FAA's order had been duly complied with. As regards Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644445, he stated that action taken on the complaints was conveyed to the Appellant. Regarding the legal status of the shops located in the vicinity of New Ashok Nagar he stated that answering the same fell within the purview of the EDMC as encroachment (if any) has to be initiated at the behest of the municipal corporation and necessary assistance would be provided by the jurisdictional police if so requested by EDMC.
With regard to Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613560, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613561, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/613565, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607295 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607365 he stated that the investigation is pending finality as the Appellant did not join the inquiry proceedings. However, he requested the Appellant to meet the concerned SDPO Shri Yashwant Sivan and assured him that his grievance would be dealt with appropriately.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission notes that all the matters listed herein emanate from Appellant's grievance regarding inaction on his complaints regarding alleged legal encroachment by a dhaba owner on the pavement in the vicinity of New Ashok Nagar and the alleged counter complaint filed against him by the dhaba owner. A series of applications have been filed by the Appellant based on responses received by him in earlier applications which is resulting in disproportionate diversion of resources of all stakeholders. This bench has earlier heard more than 290 Second Appeals/ Complaints of the same applicant against Delhi Police and several of those matters emanate from the same grievance.
In view of the above, the Commission does not intend to pass separate directions in each matter and limits its observation to Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644445 where the Appellant is inter alia seeking information as to whether the shops located in the vicinity of New Ashok Nagar Page 24 of 25 are legal. In Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/628867 decided on 27.08.2020, this bench had passed the following direction:
"The appellant's submission during the hearing reveals the genesis of the queries can be addressed only when appropriate action for removal of the encroachment is taken by the respondent. Considering the limited scope of the RTI Act, the Commission directs the respondent- Sh. Rajendra Kumar- ACP-HQ to furnish a revised comprehensive reply about action taken for removal of the encroachment on the footpath and in the event the encroachment has not been removed so far, reason for the same shall also be provided to the appellant, within three weeks of receipt of this order."
In the light of the above direction, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl, DCP, East District, Delhi Police to obtain the action taken status on the alleged encroachment from the concerned PIO of EDMC and provide a comprehensive reply regarding the factual position to the Appellant by 31.03.2023 under intimation to the Commission.
The PIO cum Addl, DCP, East District, Delhi Police is also directed to provide a revised reply for Second Appeal Nos CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644639, CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644460 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/645862 as agreed during the hearing. The Commission also observes that in Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/659609, the reply provided in the compliance letter dated 01.12.2021 pertains to a representation dated 08.09.2021 whereas the appellant is seeking information regarding email dated 30.08.2021. Hence, the PIO cum Addl, DCP, East District, Delhi Police is directed to provide a revised reply in the above mentioned matter as well.
No other intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. It is again reiterated to the Appellant that as held in a plethora of judgements of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court such as Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 and Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012, grievance redressal is outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 for which the information seeker is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above direction the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 25 of 25