Central Information Commission
Somesh Agrawal vs Delhi Police on 11 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
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/2024/625866
Shri Somesh Agrawal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, West District ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.07.2025
Date of Decision : 09.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.04.2024
PIO replied on : 26.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 29.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 09.05.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 15.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Current status / Action taken report of complaint in the Dy. No. 15397/Email dated 27/02/2024 to C.P. Delhi Police.
2. Copy of IO Report in complaint Dy. No. 15397/Email dated 27/02/2024 to C.P. Delhi Police..
3. Copy of complainant statement in complaint Dy. No. 15397/Email dated 27/02/2024 to C.P. Delhi Police.
4. Name of IO in complaint Dy. No. 15397/Email dated 27/02/2024 to C.P. Delhi Police.
5. Copy of opposite party statement in complaint Dy. No. 15397/Email dated 27/02/2024 to C.P. Delhi Police.
6. Copy of IO Report in the Dy. No. 82 A dated 24/08/2023 at Janakpuri PS.
7. Current status / Action taken report in complaint Dy No. 82A dated 24/08/2023 at Janakpuri PS.
8. Copy of complainant statement in complaint Dy. No. 82A dated 24/08/2023 at Janakpuri PS. at Janakpuri PS..
9. Name of IO in complaint Dy. No. 82A dated 24/08/2023 at Janakpuri PS. at Janakpuri PS.
10. Copy of opposite party statement in complaint Dy. No. 82A dated 24/08/2023 at Janakpuri PS. at Janakpuri PS.
11. Current status/Action taken report of complaint in the Jan Sunvai No. 75 dated 27/03/2024 to CP Delhi Police.Page 1 of 3
12. Copy of complainant statement in complaint Jan Sunvai No. 75 dated 27/03/2024 to CP Delhi Police.
13. Name of IO in complaint Jan Sunvai No. 75 dated 27/03/2024 to CP Delhi Police.
14. Copy of opposite party statement in complaint Jan Sunvai No. 75 dated 27/03/2024 to CP Delhi Police.
15. Copy of IO report in Jan Sunvai No. 75 dated 27/03/2024 to CP Delhi Police.
16. Current status of complaint No. 40349/2023 to CVC.
17. Copy of IO Report in complaint No. 40349/2023 to CVC.
18. Copy of complainant statement in complaint No. 40349/2023 to CVC.
19. Name of IO in complaint No. 40349/2023 το CVC.
20. Copy of opposite party statement in complaint No. 40349/2023 to CVC.
21. Copy of LAW/Service Rule / Delhi Police Act / Indian Constitution that authorize police 10 to write white lie false fabricated inquiry report without investigation & statement.
22. Copy of Punishment as per Delhi Police ACT for Censure on vigilance inquiry report.
23. Copy of Punishment as per Delhi Police Act for Misconduct on vigilance inquiry report.
24. Copy of ACTION to be taken as per Delhi Police Act to Police 10 on writing white lie false fabricated inquiry report without investigation & statement.
25. Copy of FILE NOTING in complaint Dy. No. 82A dated 24/08/2023 at Janakpuri PS. at Janakpuri PS.
26. Copy of FILE NOTING in complaint Dy. No. 15397/Email dated 27/02/2024 to C.P. Delhi Police.
27. Copy of FILE NOTING in complaint in complaint No. 40349/2023 to CVC.
28. Copy of FILE NOTING in complaint in complaint No. Jan Sunvai No. 75 dated 27/03/2024."
The CPIO-cum-Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi vide letter dated 26.04.2024 replied as under:-
"1 to 28:-In this regard, requisite information is very lengthy. Collecting such long information from lengthy records of various offices diverts the limited resources of Public Authority. Hence, the requisite information cannot be provided u/s 7(9) of RTI Act-2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 09.05.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant sent a letter dated 06.07.2025 and sought permission to participate in the hearing through virtual mode.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Heard through audio conference Page 2 of 3 Respondent: Shri Yogesh Dubey - I/C RTI Cell and Shri Heera Lal - Insp., West District, Delhi Police attended the hearing.
The Appellant was heard through audio conference and he stated that despite the PIO's response, he was not satisfied with the information. Deliberation between parties revealed that though Inquiry report had been furnished to him, he still seemed dissatisfied.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had duly responded to the RTI application and averments of parties indicate information available on records had been provided to the Appellant. However, considering the oral contentions made by the Appellant during hearing, the Respondent-PIO, West district, Delhi Police is directed to grant inspection of records related to the complaint bearing Dy. No. 82A and Jan Sunvai Complaint No. 75, as specified in the RTI Application, if the Appellant approaches the Respondent within thirty days of receipt of this order, on a mutually convenient date and time. Copies of documents identified by the Appellant shall be provided to him upon payment of fees as stipulated under the Act. The Respondent must ensure that records given for inspection should not contain any information which is expressly barred under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and also ensure that provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act should also be applied to redact any third party information if deemed necessary while disclosing the records as sought by the Appellant. A compliance report in this regard shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission within one week after the inspection is carried out by the Appellant.
In the light of the aforementioned discussion, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)