Central Information Commission
Mr.Ramesh vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 26 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000477
Appellant : Shri N Ramesh
Public Authority : Police Department, Puducherry
Date of Hearing : 26.8.2010
Date of Decision : 26.8.2010
FACTS :
The matter is called for hearing today dated 26.8.2010 through video conferencing. Appellant present along with Advocate Shri N Krishnamurthy. The public authority is represented by Shri Atul Katyar, Sr SP.
2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 29.10.2009, the appellant had wished to know the reasons for not filing a charge-sheet in Crime No 124/2008 of Police Station, Muthialpet, lodged by him. The CPIO had informed the appellant vide letter dated 12.11.2009 that the matter was under
investigation and disclosure of any information at this stage would impede the process of investigation in terms of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the AA had taken a similar view in his order dated 15.12.2009.
3. During the hearing, Shri Katyar submits that there was delay in filing of charge-sheet has expert opinion was awaited form CFSL, Hyderabad and the opinion has since been received and a charge-sheet filed in the aforesaid case.
4. In the premises, the appeal has become infructuous and is dismissed.
5. However, before parting with the matter, we would like to deal with some other minor issues raised by Adv Krishnamurthy. One of the issues raised by him is that instead of denying information at the initial stage the police authority could very well have informed the appellant about the real reason of delay in finalising the case. The submission made by him is correct. If the police had informed the appellant that the delay was caused due to non-receipt of expert opinion, this would not have impeded investigation in any manner whatsoever. The CPIO is advised to note it for future.
6. Another submission made by Adv Krishnamurthy is that the appellant was denied information and, therefore, compensation should be paid to him in terms of section 20 (1) of the RTI Act. This plea is not correct inasmuchas the CPIO responded to the RTI application within the statutory period of 30 days. Hence, there is no delay. At this juncture, we would also like to clarify that any deficiency in responding to the RTI application does not mean denial of information. The CPIO responded to the RTI application as per his understanding of law and without any malafides and he has been suitably advised by this Commission in the proceeding para.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner 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.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Address of parties :-
1. Shri Atul Katyar Sr SP, Puducherry Police, Puducherry
2. Shri N Ramesh No 225, M.G. Road, Opp Perumal Koil, Muthialpet, Puducherry-605003