Central Information Commission
Lt Col Anand Prakash Singh vs Delhi Police on 7 September, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई ददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2018/160779
Lt Col Anand Prakash Singh, ...निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
The PIO, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police, O/o the PIO, Licensing
Branch, Defence Colony, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2020
Date of Decision : 07.09.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.07.2018
PIO replied on : 09.08.2018
First Appeal filed on : 11.08.2018
First Appellate Order on : No Reply
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 05.10.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2018 seeking information on following points pertaining to M/s. 3117/Rajendra Nath Security Agency, a private security agency licensed under PSARA:
1. Please inform me whether any change/ correction in the name of the "Security Agency", has been made by the licensing authority after the issue of the license? If answer to this query is YES then please inform me:
(a) Exact date when the request for change/correction in the name of the "Security Agency" was received in the office of the Licensing Authority.
(b) Copy of the application through which request for change/correction in the name of the "Security Agency" was applied for.
(c) Copy of the relevant rule/ authority under which the change /correction in the name of the "Security Agency" was made.
(d) Detail of fees, if any, laid down and levied in the instant case by the licensing authority for making the change/ correction in the license.
(e) Provide me a copy of the latest license certificate with changed/ corrected name of the "Security Agency".Page 1 of 5
2. Please also provide me copies of the following registration Certificates of the "Security Agency":-
(a) Employees Provident Fund (EPF) registration Certificate,
(b) Employees State Insurance (ESI) registration Certificate,
(c) Service Tax registration Certificates and
(d) Goods 86 Services Tax (GST) registration Certificate.
The PIO, Licensing Unit, Delhi Police vide letter dated 09.08.2018 provided a point-wise reply to the Complainant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.08.2018, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the reply dated 09.08.2018. He further stated that the written submissions dated 24.08.2020 should be taken on record. He has quoted that the PIO/FAA of the Respondent have not provided any counter statement to the instant complaint which is in clear violation of Regulation 12 of the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007. He alleged that the reply dated 09.08.2018 is back dated because the Respondent has dispatched the letter 40 days after the date of PIO's signature and in order to prove that, a Speed Post tracking report was also annexed with the present complaint which shows that the article/consignment was dispatched on 20.09.2018. In addition, he also questioned the transfer of the present RTI Application to the PIO, GNCT of Delhi which is not the proper nomenclature since the Delhi Government has several PIOs in various Departments.
Respondent is represented by Shri Makhan Singh, PIO/ACP-Licensing through audio conference. He submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application does not pertain to them as the Respondent does not grant licenses or undertake name and addresses change etc. and the same is being done by the GNCT of Delhi. Hence, the RTI Application was forwarded to the PIO, GNCT of Delhi. Upon being asked as to which Department the present RTI Application was transferred, no satisfactory response was offered by the PIO.
Page 2 of 5Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the Complainant is making an issue of (1) the transfer of the instant RTI Application; (2) reply to the instant RTI Application was back-dated and (3) violation of Regulation 12 of the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007.
In this regard, Commission concedes that the transfer of the instant RTI Application has been done in a casual and lackadaisical manner without mentioning the proper/correct designation of the PIO. Further, it is also evident from the records available in the instant matter that though the PIO has signed the reply on 09.08.2018, it has been dispatched on 20.09.2018, which is incorrect and the same is in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. In this regard, Commission expresses its displeasure and cautions the PIO to be careful in future, while dealing with matters pertaining to RTI Act.
Notwithstanding the above, Commission relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v/s. Central Information Commission and Another vide W.P(C) 12714/2009 dated 21.05.2010, wherein it has been held that the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 is ultra vires the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard the Hon'ble Court has categorically held as under:
"...
12. In this writ petition, the following questions need to be determined:-
(1) ...
(2) Whether the Chief Information Commissioner had the power to make the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act and particularly regulations with regard to the subject matter of Chapter IV thereof, namely, „registration, abatement or return of the appeal‟?
...
Question No.2:
22. ...
23. ...
24. Apart from this, there also arises the larger issue as to whether the impugned Regulations could, at all have been made by the Chief Information Commissioner.
The impugned Regulations have purportedly been made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act. The impugned Regulations purport to be regulations for the management of the „affairs‟ of the Central Information Commission so as to enable it to function effectively. However, we may observe, at the outset, that the regulations go far beyond the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission, which is provided for under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act. ...
25. We note that there is a similar provision in respect of the State Information Commissions, namely, Section 15(4). Section 12(4) merely indicated that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Central Page 3 of 5 Information Commission vests in the Chief Information Commissioner, who shall be assisted by the Information Commissioners. This power, which vests in the Chief Information Commissioner, is only limited to the affairs of the Central Information Commission and does not extend to the substantive provisions of the RTI Act. No power whatsoever has been given to the Chief Information Commissioner to impinge upon or add to or subtract from the powers and functions of the Central Information Commission as stipulated in Section 18 of the RTI Act. The Chief Information Commissioner could, arguably, prescribe regulations concerning its own internal management affairs. He cannot promulgate or prescribe any regulations which impinge on the substantive or procedural provisions stipulated under the RTI Act and the Rules competently framed thereunder. The Chief Information Commissioner is a creature of the statute and unless the statute creating him invests him with a specific power, he cannot claim to exercise such power. The RTI Act does not confer any power upon the Chief Information Commission to make any regulations and much less regulations encroaching upon the subject matter of the rule making power of the „appropriate‟ government under Section 27.
26. Before we go on to examine the provisions of Section 27 and 28 of the RTI, which deal with the rule making powers of the „appropriate government‟ and „competent authority‟, it would be appropriate to notice the observations of the Supreme Court in respect of powers of the National Human Rights Commission in the case of N.C.Dhoundial v. Union of India and Ors.: (2004) 2 SCC 579 (at page 586(:-
"14. We cannot endorse the view of the Commission. The Commission which is an „unique expert body‟ is, no doubt, entrusted with a very important function of protecting the human rights, but, it is needless to point out that the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. Of course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act."
(underlining added) ...
40. ... The impugned Regulations are quashed as being ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005."
[Emphasis supplied] In addition, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in Chief Information Commissioner and Another vs. State of Manipur & Anr., [Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011], wherein it has been held as under:
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other."Page 4 of 5
In view of the foregoing, Commission is not inclined to provide any relief to the Complainant in the instant matter. However, Commission deems it fit to direct the PIO to submit a written explanation stating to which Department of the Delhi Government the instant RTI Application has been transferred. The said written submission should reach the Commission by 30.09.2020, failing which action will be initiated against the errant official as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
With the aforesaid observation, the instant Complaint is disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभितसत्याभितप्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5