Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vijay Prakash Gupta vs Gnctd on 19 January, 2018

                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                   Room No.414, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               New Delhi-110067

                                        F. No.CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/112488
                                        F. No.CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/109130
                                        F. No.CIC/HCDEL/A/2016/301853


Date of Hearing                     :   16.01.2018
Date of Decision                    :   16.01.2018

Appellant/Complainant               :   Mr. Vijay Prakash Gupta

Respondent                          :   PIO
                                        O/o the Dy. Commissioner of Police
                                        Special Police Unit for Women &
                                        Children
                                        Through:-     Tripta   Dewan     -
                                        PIO/Dwarka Court
                                        Inspector Seema and ASI Ravi Dutt

Information Commissioner            :   Shri Yashovardhan Azad

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :   31.12.2016, 04.01.2017 &
                                        05.03.2016
PIO replied on                      :   27.07.2017 & 04.07.2016
First Appeal filed on               :   25.05.2016
First Appellate Order on            :   06.06.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on    :   23.02.2017 & 11.02.2017

Information sought

and background of the case:

CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/112488 Vide RTI application dated 31.12.2016, the complainant sought information in respect of CC no. 1107/2/13 arising out of FIR no. 131/12. The complainant sought information as follows:

(a) the date/dates on which the notice in compliance to the orders of the Ld. M.M., Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi was received by the I.O./S.H.O., Nanakpura P.S., New Delhi to verify the factum of death and submit the death verification report of his mother late Shakuntala Gupta.

(b) the date on which the I.O./S/H.O., Nanakpura P.S., New Delhi submitted the death verification report of his mother late Shakunala Gupta before the Court of the Ld. M.M., Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

The CPIO vide letter dated 27.07.2017 furnished the information in the form of only two dates. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the complainant approached the Commission.

CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/109130 Vide RTI application dated 04.01.2017, the complainant sought information in respect of an application 16.11.2015 filed under Section 173 r/w. Section 207 Cr.P.C. In this respect complainant sought information regarding:

(a) the date/dates on which the notice in compliance to the order of the Ld. M.M., Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi was received by the I.O./S.H.O., Nanakpura P.S., New Delhi to produce the statement recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigation Officers, Mr. Saran Chand and Mr. Begh Raj Yadav.

(b) the date on which the I.O./S.H.O., Nanakpura P.S., New Delhi submitted the said statement recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigation Officers, Mr. Saran Chand and Mr. Begh Raj Yadav.

(c) Provide the detailed information citing the reasons for the repeated non-

compliance of the orders of the Ld. M.M., Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki by the I.O./S.H.O., P.S. Nanakpura, New Delhi.

(d) That it is a matter of record that the I.O./S.H.O., P.S. Nanakpura, New Delhi is never present on the respective date of hearing in-spite of the repeated orders of the Ld. M.M., Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi. Provide the detailed information citing the reasons for the repeated absence of the I.O./S.H.O., Nanakpura P.S. before the Ld. Trial Court.

The CPIO vide letter dated 27.01.2017 furnished the information as under:-

(iii)(a) - No such notice has been received in Police Station CWC, Nanakpura, New Delhi.

(iii) (b) to (d) - N/A view of reply of point no. (iii)(a) above.

Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the complainant approached the Commission.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

Both parties are present and since queries in both of these complaints are similar, they are being adjudicated together. Deliberations during the hearing reveal that the applicant is aggrieved with the response provided by the PIO, SPUWAC to the RTI application dated 31.12.2016 in the file no.

CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/112488, wherein the PIO vide reply dated 27.07.2017 has only mentioned two dates viz. 25.10.2016 and 19.12.2016. The response is too brief to the extent of being cryptic.

When probed by the Commissioner, the Respondent admits that a more reasoned and explanatory response shall be furnished by them.

Decision:

After perusal of the records and the Commission holds that both the Complaints should be converted into appeal for proper adjudication thereof. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Respondent - PIO, SPUWAC is directed to furnish a Revised reply in the response to the RTI application dated 31.12.2016 in the file no. CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/112488 and provide a reasoned and self explanatory response clarifying the facts about date and receipt of the specific notice. This Revised Reply should be provided to the appellant within a week of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

The cases are disposed of with these directions.

CIC/HCDEL/A/2016/301853/GNCTD Vide RTI application dated 03.05.2016, the appellant sought information in respect of case no. CC: 1107/2/13 arising out of FIR no. 131/12 instituted by the State on the complaint filed by the appellant's wife Mrs. Chitra Gupta. The appellant sought information about:

i) the date on which the Court Notice to verify the factum of death of his mother and submission of the death verification report was issued by the office of the Ahalmad to the concerned Naib Court/Police Station,

ii) date on which the concerned police station received the said Court Notice,

iii) information as to which police station was the said Court Notice sent and name and designation of the police officials who received the said Court;

iv) attested/authenticated copy of the register maintained by office of the Ahalmad pertaining to issuance of Court Notice and receipt of the same the concerned Naib Court/police station/police officials,

v) if the Court Notice was not issued, reason for non issuance of the same.

In response to queries (a) to (e), the PIO/Administrative Officer, District Courts, stated that information sought by the appellant relates to judicial proceedings and is exempted from disclosure as per the Rules as provided in Delhi District Court (Right to Information) Rule 2008. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 06.06.2016 upheld the reply of PIO.

Relevant facts emerging during the hearing:

Both parties are present and the Appellant reiterates his case and emphasises that information was denied without taking recourse of Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act. Despite repeated orders of the Ld. MM, the Delhi Police appeared in the Court stating each time that court Notice was not received by them since it was not issued by the Registry.

Respondent-CPIO-Dwarka Court states that inspection of all judicial records as sought by the appellant have already been provided. On being probed by the as to what prevents disclosure of information in this case, the PIO- Dwarka Court stated that the issuance of Court Notices and copies thereof are related to the judicial file and the same are not within their knowledge. CPIO stated that the Naib Court is responsible for the issuance of such notices and retains copies thereof in the judicial file, while CPIO is only aware of the administrative process.

Decision

1. After perusal of records and hearing the contentions of the parties, the Commission is not convinced by the averments put forth by the PIO- Dwarka Court. The variance in averments of the PIO is striking in itself inasmuch as while denial was on the ground of confidentiality on paper, during hearing the access to judicial file itself became the cause of denial of information.

2. The respondent could not furnish any justification or legal impediment as set out in the RTI Act to deny disclosure of this information. Denial of information by the PIO has been wrongful, because the queries primarily focussed only on dates of service of Court Notice and there can be no confidentiality in disclosure of such information. The subsequent order of the FAA is also not sound, because as per the RTI Act only such information which "impedes the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders"

is exempt from disclosure. It is not to be forgotten that there is a catena of judgements wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that mere pendency of litigation cannot be reason enough to deny information related thereto. In this case, the disclosure of date of service of Court Notice cannot by any stretch of imagination create any detriment or impediment in the investigation, particularly when the service of the notice is about verification of death of a person. Thus evidently there is no justification of denial of such administrative information as the dates of service of court notice.

3. It is noted that the PIO or the FAA have not even bothered to seek the appropriate exemption as provided by the RTI Act while denying the information and have instead cited the Delhi District Court (RTI) Rules 2008, without heeding to the basic tenet of law that a Rule emanating from the Act cannot eclipse the very Act. The conduct of the then PIO - Sh. Suresh Kumar Sikka, who denied the information on a frivolous ground and Ms. Pinki, the then Appellate Authority having upheld the illegal order of the PIO is thus unacceptable. Both have deliberately obstructed in the dissemination of information, thereby violating provisions of the RTI Act. Sh. Suresh Kumar Sikka is directed to submit his explanation for his conduct clarifying the reason as to why no penal action should be initiated against them for such denial of information. The explanations should reach the Commission by or within 15.02.2018, failing which appropriate legal proceedings shall be initiated against the defaulter.

4. The current PIO present for the hearing-Ms. Tripta Dewan is directed to furnish complete information against each of the five queries, with correct and specific response, within two weeks of receipt of this order, and compliance in this regard shall be submitted before the Commission within 06.02.2018. it is made clear that non compliance of these directions shall be viewed seriously and punitive action shall be initiated against any officer causing obstruction to the dissemination of information.

The case is thus disposed of with the above directions.

(Yashovardhan Azad) 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.

(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Page 5 of 5