Ajay Kumar vs Delhi Police on 24 August, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ajay Kumar vs Delhi Police on 24 August, 2022

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                             के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 शिकायतसंख्या/Complaint No.:        CIC/DEPOL/C/2021/602361

 Ajay Kumar                                             ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम

   1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
      Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I,
      Delhi Police, Outer District, Pushpanjali,
      Road No.-43, Delhi-110034.


                                                        ...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:

  RTI application filed on          :   06.01.2020
  CPIO replied on                   :   29.01.2020
  First appeal filed on             :   Not on record
  First Appellate Authority order   :   Not on record
  Complaint received at CIC         :   28.01.2021
  Date of Hearing                   :   24.08.2022
  Date of Decision                  :   24.08.2022

                   सूचना आयुक्त    : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
             Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya


  Information sought

The Complainant sought following information:

Page 1 of 6

Etc. • CPIO reply dated 29.01.2020:

Page 2 of 6

• Written submission of the Respondent 3 Joint Advisor- (Coordination), TRAI dated 23.08.2022 is taken record:

Page 3 of 6

Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Complainant : Not present despite notice Page 4 of 6 Respondent: Mr. Mahender Kumar Meena, ACP & CPIO, Delhi Police, present in person.

Upon Commissions instance, CPIO, Delhi Police submitted that relevant information as available on record has already been provided to the complainant on 29.01.2020.

Decision:

The Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that point wise reply was provided to the complainant by the CPIO within the prescribed time limit of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission therefore does not find any malafide intention on the part of then CPIO.

Further, the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent, then he could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-

"30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person, but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide. 31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."

Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in these complaints' u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.

Page 5 of 6

In the light of the above observations the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIOs and hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the Act. Further, the Complainant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to plead his case/contest CPIO's submission. Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO. No further action lies.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.


                                           Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल  सामररया)
                                         Information Commissioner (सच       ु )
                                                                    ू ना आयक्त


Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत)



Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514




                                                                         Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission