Central Information Commission
Gulshan Kumar vs Delhi Police on 25 August, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/642839
CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/635176
CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/635077
CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/634957
CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/634465
Shri Gulshan Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
PIO
Health Department, GNCTD
Date of Hearing : 24.08.2023
Date of Decision : 25.08.2023
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 2ndAppeal/C
No. on received on
642839 06.05.2022 04.06.2022 08.06.2022 07.07.2022 06.08.2022
635176 28.03.2022 26.04.2022 02.05.2022 26.05.2022 29.06.2022
635077 28.03.2022 26.04.2022 02.05.2022 26.05.2022 29.06.2022
634957 28.03.2022 26.04.2022 02.05.2022 26.05.2022 28.06.2022
634465 28.03.2022 18.05.2022 03.06.2022 09.06.2022 27.06.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/642839 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.05.2022 seeking information related to complaint dated 23.12.2020 regarding physical assault & robbery of valuables including gold chain, mobile phone, wristwatch and car keys etc which later converted into FIR No. 720/2020 PS Model Town on the following 05 points:-Page 1 of 15
1. Certified copy of letter of IO/SHO PS Model Town on which legal opinion from the prosecution branch was obtained in relation to FIR No. 720/2020.
2. Certified copy of legal opinion from prosecution branch obtained by I0/SHO in relation to the FIR No. 720/2020.
3. Certified copy of request letters sent by IO/SHO to MRD Department, BJRM Hospital to constitute medical based on the legal opinion obtained from prosecution branch in relation to FIR No. 720/2020.
4. Certified copy of letter dated 30.03.2022 sent by BJRM Hospital to IO/SHO PS Model Town wherein Hospital denied for constituting medical board in relation to FIR No. 720/2020 in view of non-availability of regular SR/ENT in Hospital.
5. Certified copy of the letter written by SHO PS Model Town and DCP North-West District to Health Department, GNCTD for constitution of Medical Board in relation to FIR No. 720/2020.
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 04.06.2022 replied as under:-
Point 1 to 5:-
As report obtained from SHO/Model Town through ACP/Model Town, the investigation of case FIR No. 720/2020 Police Station Model Town Place is still pending. Hence, no such document/information could be facilitated at this stage as per section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005. However, your RTI application is being sent to PIO/Health Deptt GNCTD with regard to the information sought in point 04 of the application.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 08.06.2022. The FAA/DCP, North-West District, vide order dated 07.07.2022 stated as under:-
The undersigned has carefully considered the contention put forth by the appellant in his RTI appeal dated 08.06.2022 (received on 14.06.2022), initial RTI application dated 06.05.2022 (received on 09.05.2022) and information provided by the PIO/NW District, Delhi vide letter dated 04.06.2022. Upon consideration, it has been found that the PIO/NWD, Delhi vide letter dated 04.06.2022 has provided the point wise information to the appellant within the stipulated time. Besides this, in the present appeal, appellant has mentioned that he is aggrieved by the response of the PIO for denying the disclosure of information as requested which are not exempted under RTI Act 2005. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is remitted back to the PIO/NWD, Delhi with the direction to provide the specific information to the appellant on his RTI application dated 06.05.2022 within 04 weeks from the receipt of this order after examine his RTI application and appeal under the provision of RTI Act-2005. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is disposed off accordingly.
In compliance with the FAA's order the CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 19.07.2022 furnished point wise reply to the appellant.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.Page 2 of 15
A written submission was received from the Complainant dated 17.08.2023, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"7. That PIO has not complied with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 in letter and spirit & has further deliberately & wilfully not complied with the direction/order passed by the First Appellate Authority in this matter.
8. That the Complainant has preferred this complaint before the Hon'ble Commission u/s 18(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 against the response of CPIO/NWD, Delhi dated 19/07/2022, wherein PIO has denied to supply the information even after the order passed by the First Appellate Authority to provide the specific information to the Complainant.
Hence, the present Complaint was preferred on the following grounds:-
Grounds of Complaint
(i) It is pertinent to note that Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates that "Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders" may be withheld. However, it is observed that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the (NWD) in Delhi has not provided adequate justification for how the disclosure of the requested information or documents would indeed hinder the ongoing investigative proceedings pertaining to the case.
(ii) That CPIO/NWD, Delhi has deliberately not supplied such information/ documents as the same has been malafidely obstructed by CPIO/NWD, Delhi even after direction/order passed by the FAA vide its Complaint order dated 26.05.2022.
(iii) That the CPIO/NWD, Delhi vide its letter dated 21.06.2022 has not provided sought information even after the considerable time period of 90 days, although RTI Act, prescribes 30 days for such response under RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) That the CPIO/NWD, Delhi has deliberately & willfully disregarded the directives and instructions issued by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) at the NWD in Delhi. The CPIO was explicitly instructed to furnish the requested information within a period of four weeks, a mandate that seems to have been overlooked.
10. That the CPIO failed to consider the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and the complainant is aggrieved by the response of the CPIO for denying the disclosure of information as requested which are not covered exempted categories under RTI Act 2005.
(i) That the order passed by CPIO/NWD, Delhi is also against the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record.
Page 3 of 15(ii) That the CPIO/NWD, Delhi has utterly failed to follow the statutory duty for providing information under the statutory provisions of RTI, Act 2005.
11. The Complainant has relied upon the various observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi & Hon'ble CIC in RTI matters:
(i) Bhagat Singh Vs CIC & Others, WP (C) 3114/2007, by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(ii) B.S. Mathur Vs PIO, WP (C) 295/2011 dated 03.06.2011, by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(iii) (Adesh Kumar Vs UOI & Others, WP (C) 3542/2014 dated 16.12.2014, by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(iv) Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Vs Naveen Yadav, WP (C) 8960/2018 & CM Nos. 34438-34439/2018 dated 27.08.2018 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(v) Yogesh Jain Vs Delhi Police in second Complaint no.
CIC/DEPOL/AJ2020/108039 dated 20.05.2021, by Hon'ble Central Information Commission.
12. The Complainant humbly pray before the Hon'ble Commission for the following: -
• To direct the PIO in writing to provide the certified copy of the complete documents & true information as requested in RTI application within 1 (one) week at free of cost.
• To impose penalty and recommend disciplinary action against CPIO/NWD, Delhi Police, Delhi for wilful denial of rightful information under the RTI Act, 2005 even after the order/direction passed by the Hon'ble FAA to provide the information.
• To award compensation as per section 19 (8) of RTI Act related to the detriment suffered for obstruction of Information. • Any other relief/order/direction in favour of the complainant and against the PIO/NWD as Hon'ble CIC deems fit, just, and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the present case."
(2) CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/635176 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2022 seeking information related to complaint dated 23.12.2020 regarding physical assault & robbery of valuables including gold chain, mobile phone, wristwatch and car keys etc which later converted into FIR No. 720/2020 PS Model Town on the following 04 points:-Page 4 of 15
1. Certified copy of the directions issued on 07.02.2022 by the Addl. DCP, North-
West District to IO/SHO PS Model Town to comply the directions of Hon'ble Court in FIR No. 720/2020.
2. Certified copy of compliance report as directed by Addl. DCP, North-West District to submit on 14.02.2022 by the IO/SHO PS Model Town.
3. Certified copy of action taken report/status report on the Complaints filed by the undersigned through emails dated 01.02.2022 & 26.02.2022 in respect of non- action by IO/SHO PS Model Town in FIR No. 720/2020
4. Certified copy of the action taken/status report as on date on the complaint filed by undersigned on 07.02.2022 to Addl. DCP-1, North West District.
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 26.04.2022 replied as under:-
Point 1&2:- As per report obtained from ACP/Model Town, the directions of senior officers to the IO in the investigation of any case is an internal process and the same could not be made public even though the investigation of the case is still pending. Hence no such information could be facilitated as per section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point 3&4:- The action taken report of the complaints mentioned in the RTI application obtained from ACP/Model Town is enclosed herewith(total-2 pages), which is self explanatory.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.05.2022. The FAA/DCP, North-West District, vide order dated 26.05.2022 stated as under:-
4. The undersigned has carefully considered the contention put-forth by the appellant in his RTI appeal dated 02.05.2022 (received on 06.05.2022), initial RTI application dated 28.03.2022 and information provided by the PIO/NW District, Delhi vide letter dated 26.04.2022. Upon consideration, it has been found that the PIO/NWD, Delhi vide letter dated 26.04.2022 has provided the point wise information to the appellant within the stipulated time. Moreover, in the present appeal, appellant has mentioned that he is aggrieved by the response of the PIO for denying the disclosure of information as requested which are not exempted under RTI Act 2005. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is needs to remitted back to the PIO/NWD, Delhi with the direction to provide the specific information to the appellant on his RTI application dated 28.03.2022 within 04 weeks from the receipt of this order after examine his RTI application and appeal under the provision of RTI Act-2005. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is disposed off accordingly.
In compliance with the FAA's order the CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 21.06.2022 furnished point wise reply to the complainant.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission was received from the Complainant dated 17.08.2023, wherein the submissions made in CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/642839 were reiterated.
Page 5 of 15(3) CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/635077 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2022 seeking information related to complaint dated 23.12.2020 regarding physical assault & robbery of valuables including gold chain, mobile phone, wristwatch and car keys etc which later converted into FIR No. 720/2020 PS Model Town on the following 04 points:-
1. Certified copy of directions issued from the Office of Commissioner of Police on the said complaints filed by the undersigned regarding non-action by IO/SHO PS Model Town in FIR No. 720/2020.
2. Certified copy of the action taken report/status report on the complaints filed by the undersigned.
3. Certified copy of the report on action taken against 10/SHO PS Model Town for non- compliance or disobedience of the Hon'ble Court Order dated 21.01.2022 & 24.02.2022.
4. Certified copy of directions or necessary steps are taken to comply the Court Order dated 21.01.2022 & 24.02.2022 by the office of Commissioner of Delhi Police in this matter.
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 26.04.2022 replied as under:-
Point no. 1, 3 & 4:- As per report obtained from ACP/Model Town, the directions of senior officers to the IO in the investigation of any case is an internal process and the same could not be made public even though the investigation of the case is still pending. Hence no such information could be facilitated as per section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point 2:- The action taken report of the complaints mentioned in the RTI application obtained from ACP/Model Town is enclosed herewith(total-2 pages), which is self explanatory.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.05.2022. The FAA/DCP, North-West District, vide order dated 26.05.2022 stated as under:-
5. The undersigned has carefully considered the contention put-forth by the appellant in his RTI appeal dated 02.05.2022 (received on 06.05.2022), initial RTI application dated 28.03.2022 and information provided by the PIO/NW District, Delhi vide letter dated 26.04.2022. Upon consideration, it has been found that the PIO/NWD, Delhi vide letter dated 26.04.2022 has provided the point wise information to the appellant within the stipulated time. Moreover, in the present appeal, appellant has mentioned that he is aggrieved by the response of the PIO for denying the disclosure of information as requested which are not exempted under RTI Act 2005. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is remitted back to the PIO/NWD, Delhi with the direction to provide the specific information to the appellant on his RTI application dated 28.03.2022 within 04 weeks from the receipt of this order Page 6 of 15 after examine his RTI application and appeal under the provision of RTI Act-2005. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is disposed off accordingly.
In compliance with the FAA's order the CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 21.06.2022 furnished point wise reply to the complainant.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission was received from the Complainant dated 17.08.2023, wherein the submissions made in CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/642839 were reiterated.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/634957 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2022 seeking information related to complaint dated 23.12.2020 regarding physical assault & robbery of valuables including gold chain, mobile phone, wristwatch and car keys etc which later converted into FIR No. 720/2020 PS Model Town on the following 04 points:-
1. Certified copy of the directions for taking necessary steps taken by the Office of Spl CP L&O-Zone-I to comply the order of Hon'ble Court dated 21.01.2022 & 24.02.2022 in case FIR No. 720/2020.
2. Certified copy of action taken report on directions issued by Spl CP L&O-Zone-I on the complaints filed by the undersigned on 11.03.2022.
3. Certified copy of the report on action taken against 10/SHO PS Model Town for non compliance or disobedience of the Hon'ble Court Order dated 21.01.2022 & 24.02.2022.
4. Certified copy of the status report as on date on the complaint filed on 11.03.2022 by the undersigned against I0 /SHO PS Model on non-action The CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 26.04.2022 replied as under:-
Points 1 to 3 :- As per report obtained from ACP/Model Town, the directions of senior officers to the IO in the investigation of any case is an internal process and the same could not be made public even though the investigation of the case is still pending. Hence no such information could be facilitated as per section B(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point 4:- The action taken report of the complaints mentioned in the RTI application obtained from ACP/Model Town is enclosed herewith(total-2 pages), which is self explanatory Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.05.2022. The FAA/DCP, North-West District, vide order dated 26.05.2022 stated as under:-
1. The undersigned has carefully considered the contention put forth by the appellant in his RTI appeal dated 02.05.2022 (received on 06.05.2022), initial RTI application dated 28.03.2022 and information provided by the PIO/NW District, Page 7 of 15 Delhi vide letter dated 26.04.2022. Upon consideration, it has been found that the PIO/NWD, Delhi vide letter dated 26.04.2022 has provided the point wise information to the appellant within the stipulated time. Moreover, in the present appeal, appellant has mentioned that he is aggrieved by the response of the PIO for denying the disclosure of information as requested which are not exempted under RTI Act 2005. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is remitted back to the PIO/NWD, Delhi with the direction to provide the specific information to the appellant on his RTI application dated 28.03.2022 within 04 weeks from the receipt of this order after examine his RTI application and appeal under the provision of RTI Act-2005.
With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is disposed off accordingly.
In compliance with the FAA's order the CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 21.06.2022 furnished point wise reply to the complainant.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission was received from the Complainant dated 17.08.2023, wherein the submissions made in CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/642839 were reiterated.
(5) CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/634465 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2022 seeking information related to complaint dated 23.12.2020 regarding physical assault & robbery of valuables including gold chain, mobile phone, wristwatch and car keys etc which later converted into FIR No. 720/2020 PS Model Town on the following 02 points:-
1. Certified copy of the enquiry report on the complaints filed by the undersigned on 01.02.2022 & 26.02.2022 in the case FIR No. 720/2020.
2. Certified copy of action taken report on action called for against IO/SHO PS Model Town on the complaints filed by the undersigned.
The CPIO/DCP, Vigilance, vide letter dated 19.04.2022 replied as under:-
Point 1 & 2 :- Your both the E-mails dated 01.02.2022 & 26.02.2022 have already been forwarded through Email to DCP/North West District, Delhi for taking necessary action at their end. Hence, your RTI application is being transferred to PIO/North-West District, Delhi for providing you the requisite information under RTI Act-2005.
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 18.05.2022 replied as under:-
Point 1 & 2 :-
The requisite enquiry report obtained from HAC/NWD is enclosed herewith (Total- 01 page). Hence, no information/document could be facilitated as per section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.Page 8 of 15
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2022.
The FAA/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, vide order dated 11.05.2022 stated as under:-
The undersigned after carefully scrutinizing the relevant record available in RTI Cell/Vigilance, contention put forth by the appellant in his present first appeal dated 02.05.2022, initial RTI application of the appellant and the reply given by the PIO/Vigilance, Delhi against his RTI application, have come to the conclusion that PIO/Vigilance, Delhi has already provided the reply pertaining to Vigilance Unit to the appellant within stipulated period after collecting the same under section 5(4) of RTI Act-2005 and rightly transferred the RTI application to PIO/North-West District, Delhi to provide a suitable reply to the appellant directly within stipulated period under the provision of RTI Act, vide letter No. (ID-371/22)/1294-95/RTI/Vigilance, dated 19.04.2022 as both Emails dated 01.02.2022 & 26.02.2022 of the appellant has been forwarded through Email to DCP/North-West District, Delhi for taking necessary action at their end. Hence, present first appeal of the appellant is being transferred to FAA/North-West District, Delhi for taking appropriate action in the matter under the provisions of RTI Act 2005.
The FAA/DCP, North-West District, vide order dated 09.06.2022 stated as under:-
1. The undersigned has carefully considered the contention put-forth by the appellant in his two RTI appeals dated 02.05.2022 (received on 13.05.2022) & 03.06.2022 (received on 06.06.2022), initial RTI application dated 29.03.2022 (received on 21.04.2022) and information provided by the PIO/NW District, Delhi vide letters dated 18.05.2022 and 04.06.2022. Upon consideration, it has been found that the PIO/NWD, Delhi vide letters dated 18.05.2022 & 04.06.2022 has already provided the available point wise information pertaining to the North West District to the appellant within the stipulated time under the provision of RTI Act-
2005. Hence, the information provided by the PIO/NWD, Delhi is upheld and no further action is called for. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is disposed off accordingly.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was received from the Appellant dated 17.08.2023, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"7. GROUND OF APPELLANT
(a) It is pertinent to note that Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 2005 stipulates that "Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders" may he withheld. However, it is observed that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the (NWD) in Delhi has not provided adequate justification for how the disclosure of the requested information or documents would indeed hinder the ongoing investigative proceedings pertaining to the case.Page 9 of 15
(b) That the first appellate authority has not been cognizant of the fact that CPIO/NWD, Delhi has deliberately not supplied such information/ documents as the same has been malafidely obstructed by CPIO/NWD, Delhi.
(c) That first appellate authority has not been cognizant of the fact that CPIO/NWD, Delhi was explicitly instructed to furnish the requested information within a period of four weeks, a mandate that seems to have been overlooked.
(d) That the CPIO failed to consider the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and the appellant is aggrieved by the response of the first appellate authority for denying the disclosure of information as requested which are not covered exempted categories under RTI Act 2005.
(e) That the first appellate authority has not been cognizant of the fact that the appellant had preferred a contempt petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in light of the willfully disobedience of the 10 Sub Inspector Sunil in complying with orders dated 21.01.2022 and 24.02.2022 passed by the Court of Sh. Mayank Goel, Ld. MM, North District, Rohini Court, Delhi (as he then was.
8. The Appellant has relied upon the various observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi & Hon'ble CIC in RTI matters:
(i) Bhagat Singh Vs CIC & Others, WP (C) 3114/2007, by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(ii) B.S. Mathur Vs PIO, WP (C) 295/2011 dated 03.06.2011, by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(iii) Adesh Kumar Vs UOI & Others, WP (C) 3542/2014 dated 16.12.2014, by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(iv) Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Vs Naveen Yadav, WP (C) 8960/2018 & CM Nos. 34438-34439/2018 dated 27.08.2018 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(v) Yogesh Jain Vs Delhi Police in second Appeal no.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/108039 dated 20.05.2021, by Hon'ble Central Information Commission.
9. The Appellant humbly pray before the Hon'ble Commission for the following: -
• To direct the PIO in writing to provide the certified copy of the complete documents & true information as requested in RTI application within 1 (one) week at free of cost.
• To inform the PIO, that the appellant may, if required, proceed to file a complaint (and/or) to prefer to file second appeal with CIC as u/s 18(1) and 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, and pray before the Hon'ble Commission for imposing penalty/disciplinary action.
• Any other relief/order/direction in favour of the appellant and against the PIO/NWD as Hon'ble CIC deems fit, just, and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the present case."Page 10 of 15
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Complainant/ Appellant with Shri Lakshay Kumar, Advocate participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Lakshay Kumar reiterated the written submissions filed before the Commission in all the matters and argued that the information was malafidely denied by the PIO in the 4 Complaints since no information was provided despite the orders of the FAA. He also argued that exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) was claimed by the Respondent without any reasons/ justifications explaining how disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. Regarding the Second Appeal under consideration in CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/634465, he argued that in the said matter, the same FAA who had directed for disclosure of information in the other 4 matters upheld the reply of the PIO wherein information was denied u/s 8 (1) (h) of the Act. Therefore, he prayed for disclosure of information in the Second Appeal.
The Respondent represented by Dr C S Bhogal, PIO, Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital; Shri Lalit Kumar, Inspector and SHO, PS Model Town, Delhi Police; Shri Sunil, SI, PS Ad Nagar, Delhi Police (earlier posted at PS Model Town); Shri Jitender Kumar, SI, RTI Cell, NW District, Delhi Police and Shri Vijay Singh, ASI, NW District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Lalit Kumar referred to his written submission handed over to the Commission and Complainant/ Appellant during the hearing, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"Brief facts of the case: -
.......... Further, the MLC of the complainant was got conducted at BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi where the doctor referred him to the higher centre for ENT and Dental treatment. The complainant went to MAX Hospital for further treatment and the all relevant documents were sent to the BJRM Hospital for obtaining the nature of injuries but the doctor stated that "it can't be opined that the injury of his ear (hearing loss) can't be determined whether it is due to the assault or it was pre-existing. The complainant was directed to get conduct the BERA test from higher centre i.e. AIIMS, RML etc. During the further course of investigation, opinion was sought from prosecution wing and request was sent to BJRM Hospital to constitute a medical board to decide the nature of injuries upon which the hospital authorities replied to pursue the matter related to constituting the medical board with the GNCT of Delhi. Accordingly, request were sent to the GNCT of Delhi for the same.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet into the matter was filed before the Hon'ble Court on 24.06.2022. During the trial, the present complainant filed a protest petition but the same was withdrawn by the complainant stating therein that he is filling the protest petition before the Hon'ble High Court.Page 11 of 15
Further, the applicant filed a protest petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi bearing No. Cont. CAS (C) 19/2023, titled Sh. Gulshan Kumar Vs Sh. Sunil & Ors (I0, SHO & DCP) upon which the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 16.02.2023.
Further, the supplementary charge-sheet into the present matter (including the report of medical board received from the GNCT of Delhi) has also been filed before the Hon'ble Court. Furthermore, all the complaints of Sh. Gulshan Kumar along with their replies have already been sent to the concerned branch for perusal of senior officers."
He added that there was no malafide intent on the part of the PIO while denying information u/s 8 (1) (h) since investigation in the matter was not complete at that point of time and that the supplementary charge sheet including the report of medical board received from the GNCT of Delhi) has now been filed before the Ld MM, North District, Rohini Courts. Furthermore, the Complainant/ Appellant has also filed a Protest Petition before the trial court and the next date of hearing was scheduled for 18.09.2023.
Decision Keeping in view the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that in Complaints filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause by the CPIO which the Commission is unable to conclude in the present instance. In a Complaint case filed u/s 18 of the Act, no further direction for disclosure of information can be made as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. Vs. State of Manipur and Ors, CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011(Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768-32769/2010) decided on 12.12.2011.
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission also takes note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court In W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on: 01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause.
It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, Page 12 of 15 incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
The Commission also observes that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 adjudicated on the correctness of an order of the Commission dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Respondent was cautioned to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to the RTI applicants. It was decided that:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In AnandBhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........
3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that a order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion."
In view of the above, the instant Complaints stand disposed off accordingly.
With regard to Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/634465, the Commission observes the Appellant has a right to obtain the generic information of the action taken on his complaints against third party without disclosure of Page 13 of 15 specific notings, deliberations, etc. In this context, the following observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 are relevant:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or
(b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest. 11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but Page 14 of 15 only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
In view of the above, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, North West District, Delhi Police to provide the action taken on the Complaints referred to in Second Appeal No CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/634465 to the Appellant by 30.09.2023 under intimation to the Commission. With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535
Page 15 of 15