Central Information Commission
Shri Daya Ram Haldwani vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (Dcp), North ... on 20 November, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00845 dated 19.8.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Daya Ram Haldwani
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP), North East
Facts:
By an application of 21.3.07 Shri Daya Ram Haldwani of Dilshad Garden, Delhi applied to the ACP (North East) Delhi seeking the following information with regard to action on a complaint made by him to the Commissioner of Police on 31.10.06:
"1. Please indicate the daily progress made on my application so far i.e. when did my application reach which officer for how long did it stay with that officer and what did he/ she do during that period?
2. Please give the names and designations of the officials who were supposed to take action on my application and who have not done so?
3. What action would be taken against these officials for not doing their work and for causing harassment to the public? By when would that action be taken?
4. By when would my work be done now?
5. Please give me a list of all the applications/ returns/ petitions/ grievances received after my application/ return/ petition/ grievance was received/ The list should contain the following information.
• Name of applicant/ tam payer/ petitioner/ aggrieved person.
• Receipt no.
• Date of application/ return/ petition/ grievance. • Date of disposal.
6. Please give copy or print out of those portions of records, which contains details of receipt of the above applications/ returns/ petitions/ grievances.1
7. Please give reasons for out of turn disposal of the applications/ returns/ petitions/ grievances, if any, which were received after me.
8. By when would vigilance enquiries be initiated in the above matter of out of turn disposal of applications/ returns/ petitions/ grievances, if any?"
To this he received a response pointwise on 16.4.07 as below:
"1. Your complaint was enquired into. During the course of enquiry, the allegations could not be substantiated and the same were filed.
2. SL N. P. Deshwal of PS Seemapuri was deputed for enquiry.
3. Nil in view of point No. 1 above.
4. Same as mentioned at point No. 1 above.
5. the list of complaints and their disposal is enclosed herewith.
6. Same as mentioned at point No. 5 above.
7. Same as mentioned at point No. 1 and 5 above.
8. Nil in view of facts mentioned at Point No. 1 above."
However, appellant then moved his first appeal on 30.4.07 in which he has not contested the contents of the response to the RTI application but to the response to his complaint. Shri Jaspal Singh, PIO and DCP (NE) has dismissed this appeal stating that the allegations could not be substantiated and the complaint was filed. However, a copy of the inquiry report was enclosed. In his prayer before us in his second appeal, appellant Shri Haldwani has pleaded as follows:
"1. To provide parawise details of information asked & Filing of FIR against accused.
2. To provide action taken in my application, daily progress, how long it stayed with concerned officer.
3. Name & Designation of concerned officials action taken against these officials for not doing their work, by when my work will be done & reason for out of turn disposal of applications received after my application."
The appeal was heard on 20.11.08. The following are present :
2Appellant Shri Daya Ram.
Shri Praveen Kumar.
Respondents Shri L. R. Meena, ACP/HQ/NE.
Shri Davender Kumar, HC.
Shri Haldwani pleaded that complaint made by him had substance and was wrongly filed. It was explained to him by us that this Commission has no jurisdiction in a matter of such nature. We can at best supply the information. As which, in this case, is that the complaint was enquired into and filed, as intimated to appellant Shri Daya Ram Haldwani by the public authority. Appellant Shri Haldwani then invited our attention specifically to the following in his RTI application:
1. The daily progress report made on his application, and
2. List of all applications, returns, petitions, received after his application.
Respondents Shri M. R. Meena, ACP submitted that as indicated by PIO in his response of 16.4.07, the list of complaints and their disposal had been enclosed with the response. He submitted a copy for our perusal. Appellant Shri Haldwani, however, pleaded that he had not received the attachments.
DECISION NOTICE We find that question No. 1 has two parts - (1) Daily progress report & (2) when the application was received and what action was taken thereon. The second part of the question stands answered. This also clarifies in the copy of the register sent together with the response in answer to question No. 1 where, under the entry of the application of Shri Daya Ram as of 23.9.06, under Sr. No. 1573 the comments are, "the facts have been unfounded", "filed 10.11.06". This is clearly the action taken on the application.
3It is correct, however, that there is no daily progress report. CPIO Shri Jaspal Singh will, therefore, obtain a copy of the daily progress report, if held by the IO in this case, and provide a copy to appellant Shri Haldwani within ten working days of the date of issue of this decision notice.
On the second question, which was information on complaints received and their disposal, copies of the documents sent to appellant Shri Haldwani and not received by him, were handed over to him in the hearing. This appeal is thus allowed in part.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 20.11.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 20.11.2008 4