Central Information Commission
Anil Sandhu vs Delhi Police on 22 January, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/166951
Shri Anil Sandhu ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1. PIO,O/o Addl. DCP-I, Delhi Police,
North West District, Ashok Vihar,
Delhi 110052
2. PIO/Admn. officer Judicial,
Dist. & Session Judge (NW),
Rohini Courts, Delhi-110085
Through: Sh. Swadesh Kumar - ACP Shalimar
Bagh, Inspr Sher Singh, HC Manvinder Singh,
Sh. Gobind Sadhwani and Sh. Ravi Tripathi
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2021
Date of Decision : 22.01.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.05.2018
PIO replied on : 10.06.2018
First Appeal filed on : 10.09.2018
First Appellate Order on : 10.10.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 13.11.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 21.05.2018 seeking information regarding post mortem report of labour naming Jainath on following 3 points:
1. Post Mortem report of labour naming Jainath.
2. Photographs, photographed by your police staff.
3. Other reports if any. [Queries reproduced verbatim] The PIO, Delhi Police, North West District, New Delhi vide letter dated 10.06.2018 furnished a reply to the Appellant stating that case FIR No. 512/2017 u/s 288/304A PS Shalimar Bagh was put in Hon'ble Rohini Court on 22.05.2018 vide Page 1 of 2 R/C No. 149/21 dated 27.05.2018. The Appellant's RTI application was also transferred to PIO/Rohini Court, Delhi for taking necessary action.
The PIO, Dist. & Session Judge (NW), New Delhi, on receipt of RTI application on transfer from O/o Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North West District, Ashok Vihar, vide letter dated 09.07.2018 furnished reply to the Appellant stating that the applicant may inspect the records and can obtain certified copies of judicial records by following laid down procedure in Delhi High Court Rules and Orders as these provisions are consistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO cum Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.09.2018.The FAA/DCP vide order dated 10.10.2018observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO. The FAA also transferred the First Appeal to the FAA-cum- ASJ/FTC, Rohini Court.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing has been scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for hearing through video conference and Appellant states that he has already received the desired information through the Court. Respondent pointed out that that complete documents including charge sheet is provided by the Court to all relevant parties, before charges are framed and accordingly, Appellant would have undoubtedly received the relevant documents, as a party to the proceedings.
Decision Upon examination of the facts of the case, it is noted that information sought by the Appellant is barred from disclosure under RTI Act, since it pertains to a third party. The Appellant has stated that some documents had been provided by the Court. Be that as it may be, the Commission is unable to direct disclosure of any information in this case, under the RTI Act.
The instant appeal is disposed off without any directions.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 2 of 2