Central Information Commission
Vinod vs Delhi Police on 15 July, 2022
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/2021/114076
Shri Vinod ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 12.07.2022
Date of Decision : 15.07.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.08.2020
PIO replied on : 10.10.2020
First Appeal filed on : 21.10.2020
First Appellate Order on : 07.12.2020
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 31.03.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.08.2020 seeking information on the following points:-Page 1 of 4
The CPIO, Police Headquarters, Delhi Police, vide letter dated 06.10.2020 replied as-under:-Page 2 of 4
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, South-West District, Vasant Vihar, vide letter dated 10.10.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, Addl. DCP, South West District, Vasant Vihar, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.10.2020. The FAA/DCP, South-West District, Vasant Vihar, vide order dated 07.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from PIO/DCP, Headquarters-II, vide letter dated 08.07.2022, relevant extracts of which are as under :Page 3 of 4
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing. He submitted that he had raised thirteen questions in his RTI Application but none have been answered satisfactorily by the Respondent. Furthermore, he alleged that he was physically assaulted on raising the issue of open/unhindered sale of illegal alcohol and residents of the locality could also vouch for the same. He has filed a complaint against the illegal sale of alcohol but no action has been taken by the Respondent.
The Respondent represented by Ms. Sanghamitra, ACP, APIO, South West District, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Inspector, RTI Cell/PHQ, Shri Devender, Inspector, SHO, Sarojini Nagar, Shri Rajendra Kaushik, Sub-Inspector, Vigilance, South West, and Ms. Alka Azad, ACP, APIO, PHQ participated in the hearing through video conferencing. At the outset, Shri Rajendra Kaushik, SI, Vigilance, South West, submitted that there are fifteen cases filed against the Appellant and he has been convicted in four cases involving rape, robbery and molestation. He further submitted that an enquiry was conducted by the vigilance department on the complaint filed by the Appellant and an enquiry report has been furnished to him. The Appellant is not seeking information through his RTI application but wants that the Respondent be directed to take action on his complaints, which does not fall under the ambit of RTI Act.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and submissions made by both parties, the Commission is of the consideredview that information from available official records as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the Act. In the given circumstances, since the information stands disseminated, no cause of action subsists under the RTI Act which warrants further adjudication. The Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4