Central Information Commission
Chander Mohan Agarwal vs Delhi Police on 11 December, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग, मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/146504
CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/149371
Shri Chander Mohan Agarwal ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
North District, Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 11.12.2023
Date of Decision : 11.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
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 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
146504 05.06.2022 20.07.2022 24.07.2022 24.08.202 28.09.2022
2
149371 08.07.2022 13.08.2022 21.08.2022 28.09.202 18.10.2022
2
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/146504 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.06.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Most respectfully the aforesaid RTI Citizen activist, submits his petition for the following information related to Action taken by the police authorities as their references noted against each, under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, details are as under :-
Sub References And Subject, addressee and brief jest of the Page Par dates purpose s a
(a) Prayer dated 28-7- Providing of security to super senior 2 Page 1 of 7 2021 citizen moved to SHO Police Station Begumpur copy to the DCP office and Senior Citizen Cell of this District about seepage of water in her house, despite repeated request no action being taken, dispatched through Speed Post Article No's ED918171773IN, ED918171654IN and ED918171668IN on 28-7-2021
2. Therefore kindly furnish the following information belongs to elderly helpless lady suffering from several elderly chronic diseases, approached to her husband to forward the above prayer to the appropriate police authorities but remained futile due to unresponsiveness:-
(a) Date of receipt by each public authorities and diary number;
(b) Name of the public officer/servant to whom these petitioner marked
(c) Date-wise action taken by them and report submitted to their superior authorities; and
(d) Order of the competent authority or any outcome communication to the petitioner before closing this heinous criminal case against women;"
The APIO, Outer North District vide letter dated 16.06.2022, transferred the instant RTI Application to CPIO, Addl. Dy. CP, Rohini District.
The CPIO, Addl. Dy. CP, Rohini District, Delhi vide letter dated 20.07.2022 replied as under:-
"In this regard as per report of GD Branch/RD, Delhi Speed Post Article No. ED918171654IN has not been received in Rohini Distt., Delhi and about rest of the 02 Speed post articles vide No. ED918171773IN given No. 13185/C/DCP/RD dt. 02.08.2021 (ICMS No. 895904012105209) was inquired by HC Narender, PS Aman Vihar and it emerged that no cognizable offence is made out hence the same was filed & ED918171668IN given No. 14001/C/DCP/RD dt. 06.08.2021 (ICMS No. 895904012106024) was closed by ASI Ravinder as no cognizable offence found."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.07.2022. The FAA/DCP, Rohini District, Delhi vide order dated 24.08.2022 upheld the CPIO's reply. However, the FAA, Rohini District transferred the First Appeal to FAA/Outer North District.
FAA/Dy. CP, Outer North District vide order dated 24.08.2022 furnished the name of APIO who transferred the instant RTI Application from Outer North District to Rohini District.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 7Written submission dated 08.12.2023 has been received from o/o Addl. DCP-I/PIO, Rohini District as under :
ED918171654IN : Complaint has not been received in Rohini District ED918171773IN : The Complaint diarised in this office vide no. 13185/DCP/RD dated 02.08.2021 was enquired by HC Narender PS Aman Vihar and it emerged that no cognisable offence is made out hence, the same was filed (copy of enquiry report enclosed) ED918171668IN : The Complaint diarised in this office vide no. 14001/DCP/RD dated 06.08.2021 was enquired by ASI Ravinder PS Aman Vihar and was closed as no cognisable offence is made (copy of enquiry report enclosed).
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present along with Laxmi Narain Sharma Respondent: 1. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, DCP Office, PS Samayapur Badli
2. Mr. Arun Kumar Chaudhary, ACP
3. Mr. Saudeep Rana. HC, RTI Cell/RD The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him within stipulated time frame. He stated that information furnished by the PIO is misleading and incomplete. He further stated that the FAA has passed an arbitrary ex-parte order without giving him an opportunity of hearing. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought in his RTI Application.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the action taken on the complaints of the Appellant has been duly furnished to the Appellant. Furthermore, as no cognisable offence was made out, the complaints were filed.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.Page 3 of 7
Perusal of records reveals that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. However, as regard the contention of the Appellant that the FAA passed an order ex-parte without giving opportunity of fair-hearing to the Appellant, the issue involved is no more res-integra and it is a settled principle of law that denial of fair hearing to the parties is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Deciding an Appeal after rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. The FAA is therefore, advised to ensure that fair opportunity of hearing is given to parties while deciding Appeals in future.
In view of foregoing, since the information stands disseminated, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/149371 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.07.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Most humbly the aforesaid petitioner seeks to have the following information under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act pertaining to the Police Station Sameypur Badli in the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Authority, details are as under:-
(a) Details of criminal cases received by the duty officer of the police station date-wise direct or through PCR separately from 15-4-2021 to 25-4-2021;
(b) Details of cases made to/reported to the Hon'ble Area Court with the particulars of parties and IO's thereof along with case numbers allotted by the respective courts; and
(c) Details of Police Posts with the names of Beet Officers and in charge of the Beet reflecting their means of contact functioning in the jurisdiction of this police station:"
The CPIO, Outer North District, Delhi vide letter dated 13.08.2022 replied as under:-
"You can collect the photocopy of requisite information/ document from RTI-Cell/Outer North District, PS Samaypur Badli Building Delhi-42 on any working day during office hours, after paying a sum of Rs.10 only, which represent the cost of providing the information, through Demand Draft, Postal Order or cash in favour of the D.D.O., Outer North District, Delhi. The cost has been computed @ Rs.2/- per page as per rule of this Act, against proper receipt with date on the office copy of this letter. The total numbers of pages are 05 only."Page 4 of 7
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.08.2022. The FAA/DCP, Outer North District, Delhi vide order dated 28.09.2022 held as under:
"...On the appeal, a fresh report has been obtained from SHO/Samaypur Badli through ACP/SP Badli. As regards to point No. 1 and 3, the information has already been provided. However, the name and address of complainant/respondents could not be provided u/s 8(1)
(j) of RTI Act, 2005. As regards the point No. 2, a nil report may be treated from PS Samaypur Badli. Accordingly, with these observations, the appeal is disposed off..."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 08.12.2023 has been received from PIO/Addl. DCP-I, North District, as under :
On the Second appeal, a fresh report has been obtained from SHO/Samaypur Badli through ACP/Samaypur Badli, Outer North District, Delhi. As per reports, as regards Point No. 1 & 2 requisite information is as under..
Case number allotted by the Hon'ble Court is not available in the record of PS Samaypur Badli. Name and address of complainant /respondents could not be provided u/s 8 (1) (j) and 8(1)(g) being third party and security reasons respectively. As regards point No.3. The information has already been provided to appellant. However, there, is no police Post in the jurisdiction of PS Samaypur Badli and list of beat staff are enclosed herewith.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present along with Laxmi Narain Sharma Respondent: 1. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, DCP Office, PS Samayapur Badli
2. Mr. Arun Kumar Chaudhary, ACP
3. Mr. Saudeep Rana. HC, RTI Cell/RD The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him within stipulated time frame. He stated that information furnished by the PIO is misleading and incomplete. He stated the Respondent has wrongly denied Page 5 of 7 information under the garb of third party information exempted under Section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that updated information has been furnished as per fresh reports obtained from SHO Samayapur Badli. As regards the point No. 2 of the RTI Application, the Case number allotted by the Hon'ble Court is not available in the record of PS Samaypur Badli. Further, the name of address of third party i.e complainant and respondents has not been disclosed since the same are exempted under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Furthermore, information sought with respect to beat staff, has been duly provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, 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 since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers. As regards the name and address of third parties as sought by the Appellant, the same qualifies as third-party information and same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further no larger public interest has been invoked by the Appellant. In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of Page 6 of 7 medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
[Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the referred case deny the request of Appellant for disclosure of the information related to third party.
In view of foregoing, the Commission upholds the submission of the PIO. No further action lies.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 7 of 7