Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ravi Kumar Kalra vs Gnctd on 30 May, 2023

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

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


द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/104293-UM

Mr. Ravi Kumar Kalra
                                                                 ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                        VERSUS
                                          बनाम

CPIO
O/o. The Principal District Session & Judge, (Hq): Delhi,
Pio/Nodal Officer, Rti Cell, (Central),
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054
                                                                प्रततिादीगण /Respondent



Date of Hearing     :            29.05.2023
Date of Decision    :            30.05.2023

Date of RTI application                                             26.07.2022
CPIO's response                                                     27.08.2022
Date of the First Appeal                                            12.09.2022
First Appellate Authority's response                                15.10.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                24.01.2023

                                       ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points, as under:-

The CPIO, O/o. The Principal District Session & Judge, (Hq): Delhi, vide letter dated 27.08.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 15.10.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant.Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr RK Mehra Judicial Assistant , Mr Sunil Datt AO, Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that he is a follower of Asaram bapu and claimed that he has been wrongly convicted. He further claimed that it appears in this case that the things were not in order, rather they have been manipulated, fabricated. Hence he said he was seeking aforesaid information to understand and bring forward the truth to establish Asaram Bapu's innocence.

The Respondent countered that since the offence includes rape allegations, POCSO and sensitive information , details thereof cannot be provided to the Appellant. The Respondent further furnished that statements of such cases which are recorded u/s 164 CrPC, are kept with magistrate and prosecutors, which are also kept in sealed cover and no one has access to it and therefore the information cannot be provided.

The Appellant further claimed that he is just seeking the date and not the statements given under section 164.

The Respondent submitted that the information can'r discloses under section 8(1)(g) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish a suitable revised reply to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The respondent may redact the personal information of the third parties.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly (Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणत एिं सत्यावपत प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राि) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] ददनांक / Date: 30.05.2023 Page 3 of 3