Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ashok Yadav vs Delhi Police on 4 October, 2021

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली,
                               ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/128694
                                     CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/129055
                                     CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/129057
                                     CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/129056

Shri. Ashok Yadav                                             ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Delhi Police                                        ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: ACP Sanjay Sharma, Rajouri Garden,
Inspector Rambir Verma-SHO and SI Sandeep
Kumar

Date of Hearing                       :    04.10.2021
Date of Decision                      :    04.10.2021
Chief Information Commissioner        :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

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
 128694    14.01.2019    15.02.2019       28.02.2019     12.04.2019      17.06.2019
 129055    14.01.2019    15.02.2019       28.02.2019     12.04.2019      19.06.2019
 129057    14.01.2019    15.02.2019       28.02.2019     12.04.2019      19.06.2019
 129056    14.01.2019    15.02.2019       28.02.2019     12.04.2019      19.06.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/128694 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated14.01.2019 seeking daily Diary-A (Roznamcha-A) as on 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 December 2014.

The CPIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, vide letter dated 15.02.2019 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2019. The FAA/DCP, West District vide order dated 12.04.2019 stated that the information provided by the PIO/West was found to be correct and no more information in the matter is required.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/129055 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.01.2019 seeking daily Diary-B (Roznamcha-B) as on 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 December 2014.

The CPIO /Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, vide letter dated 15.02.2019 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2019. The FAA/DCP, West District vide order dated 12.04.2019 stated that the information provided by the PIO/West was found to be correct and no more information in the matter is required.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/129057 (4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/129056 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.01.2019 seeking duty roster (Chittha) as on 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 December 2014 of lower subordinates.

The CPIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, vide letter dated 15.02.2019 intimated that as per report of SHO/Rajouri Garden Duty Roster (Chitha) record of over one year is not maintained at P.S. Rajouri Garden.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2019. The FAA/DCP, West District vide order dated 12.04.2019 stated that the information provided by the PIO/West was found to be correct and no more relief in the matter could be given to the appellant.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings were scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through virtual hearing and the Appellant, who is out of prison on interim bail reiterated that he has not been provided the information desired by him. On being asked by the Commission about the current status of the case, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant is an accused in a case pertaining to the offence of acid throwing and the said matter is pending trial before the Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari. Information as permissible under the RTI Act, has already been provided to the Appellant and Appellant has even been granted inspection of records, which he did not avail.

Decision:

Since the subject matter of the queries are similar in all the four appeals, the cases are hereby decided by a common order. Perusal of records of the case and averments put forth by the parties during the course of hearing indicate that the Respondent had replied to the Appellant's queries, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. Thus, no legal lacunae can be found in the responses, particularly Page 3 of 4 because access to information held by the Respondent had been provided in the form of inspection of records. Appellant is at liberty to obtain the desired information through inspection of records or seek alternative legal remedy before the Court, where his case is pending. In so far as the aforementioned four appeals are concerned, no further intervention is deemed necessary in these cases.

The appeals are disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4