Kusum vs National Human Rights Commission on 20 March, 2024

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kusum vs National Human Rights Commission on 20 March, 2024

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                  के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                              बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NHRCM/A/2023/606495

Ms. Kusum                                                    ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, National Human Rights Commission                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                        :   18.03.2024
Date of Decision                       :   18.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :        07.11.2022
PIO replied on                    :        14.11.2022
First Appeal filed on             :        12.12.2022
First Appellate Order on          :        12.01.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :        Nil

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-

"I filed a complaint with nhrc case no- 6795/30/7/2021 I attached the pdf for the same in the application I received the reply from nhrc dated 19/05/2022 that the chargsheet has been filed for the same complaint but the reply is incomplete so i want to know the following individually-

1) ATR (action taken report) against the police officials namely Insp Surinder Sandhu, Insp Meena Yadav, ASI Sunita and SI Gayatri as the commission didnt mention anything regarding them for their misconduct and for their demand of bribe Rs 400000 which is a heinous crime.

2) Provide me the FIR copy and the court name or number of the case which is pending trial against those police officials namely Insp Surinder Sandhu, Insp Meena Yadav, ASI Sunita and SIGayatri. As per the authority who submitted the report to nhrc that charge sheet has been filed in court."

The Section Officer & PIO, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi vide letter dated 14.11.2022 replied as under:-

Page 1 of 3

"Point No. 1 & 2:-As per CMS, the Commission's directions dated 19.5.2022 in case no. 6795/30/7/2021 are self explanatory. The report dated 16.2.2022 (2 pages) received from DCP, Vigilance, Delhi in the matter is also enclosed for information.

The complainant, if still aggrieved, may visit the Commission with prior appointment with the PIO and inspect the scanned copies of the file and take the copies of documents as she desires."

Dissatisfied with theresponse received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2023. The FAA vide order dated 12.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

A written submission has been received from the PIO and Section Officer, NHRC vide letter dated 05.03.2024 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present Respondent: 1. Shri Mukesh Kumar, Section Officer

2. Shri Ravinder Kumar, Assistant The Appellant stated that incorrect and misleading information was provided by the Respondent, as appropriate action was not taken on her complaint to NHRC.

Shri Mukesh Kumar stated that the factual position in the matter was conveyed to the Appellant as per available records and copy of the report received from the O/o the DCP, Vigilance was also provided. He also offered inspection of records with prior appointment to the Appellant who refused to avail off the same.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent as only such information that is held and available on the records of a public authority can be provided by the CPIO as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of her grievance regarding the correctness of the action taken on her complaint, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.

Page 2 of 3

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands 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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission