Central Information Commission
Sunil Kumar vs Delhi Police on 1 April, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2023/109206
Shri Sunil Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
South District
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 28.03.2024
Date of Decision : 28.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.08.2022
PIO replied on : 14.09.2022
First Appeal filed on : 12.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : 15.11.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 27.02.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.08.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Please inform me the Name, Designation, Badge Number, Office Address, e-mail and Phone No of the Investigating Officer(s) entrusted with the re-investigation of the case F.I.R. No. 0345/2014, PS: Mehrauli. Please provide the certified copy of diary entry made by Investigating Officer(s) entrusted with the re-investigation of the case F.I.R. No. 0345/2014, PS: Mehrauli..
In case no action is taken or diary entry is not maintained in respect of above re- investigation of case F.I.R. No. 345/2014, PS: Mehrauli, please inform me the name of Police officer(s) and staff responsible for the same.
If no diary entry is available pertaining to re- investigation of case F.I.R. No. 345/2014, PS: Mehrauli, please supply me the certified copy of the circular issued by the Commissioner of Delhi Police, & as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India based on which no diary entry has been maintained."
The CPIO vide letter dated 14.09.2022 replied as under:-
Page 1 of 5"Point No. 1: Name and details of IO - SI Sandeep Kumar, No.D- 6300,9474222476.
Point No. 2: Yes, as annexure.
Point No. 3 & 4: As above.
Point No. 5: Supplementary investigation is still going on and report will be provided as and when prepared.
Point No. 6: The same is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI ACT, 2005. Point No. 7: As per CrPC/IPC/other concerned rules. Point No. 8:Since, the main Chargesheet of the case has already been filed in the Hon'ble Court and supplementary investigation is going on, the matter is Sub-Judice before the L'd Court of South district. The matter comes under fiduciary relationship, the competent authority being the Hon'ble Trial Court. Various investigation reports of the casefiled before the Hon'ble Court has already been provided to the complainant.
The requisite information is already part of supplementary investigation and the reply of the same will be filed before the concerned Court along with a copy to the complainant after taking permission of Hon'ble Court."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 15.11.2022 stated as under:-
"The undersigned has carefully examined the contents of the appeal, RTI request dated 10.08.2022 of the appellant and found that the PIO/SD has supplied requisite information on the basis of report received from ACP/Mehrauli, Sub-Division, South District, New Delhi (Principal supplier of the information and deemed PIO u/s 5 (4) & 5 (5) under RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant within the stipulated time frame under the provision of RTI Act- 2005. It is necessary to mention here that the PIO/SD can provide the information "which is held or under his control and he (PIO) cannot generate/create the information under RTI Act, 2005. However, during the course of appeal, ACP/Mehrauli, Sub- Division, South District, New Delhi was directed to provide the information on the instant appeal. Accordingly, the reply received from ACP/Mehrauli, Sub- Division, South District, New Delhi is attached herewith, which is self-explanatory into the matter."
1. Name and details of IO - SI Sandeep Kumar, PS Mehrauli 2. Information given in point No. 3
3. It is submitted that in present case investigation has been completed in all respect and supplementary charge sheet has been filed on 23.09.2022 before the Hon'ble court Room No.502 and next date of hearing is fixed on 11.01.2023. The copy of supplementary charge sheet will be provided to complainant on the next date of hearing or whenever complainant visit in this Police Station.
Page 2 of 5 4. As above in point No. 35. Supplementary investigation is still going on and report will be provided as and when prepared.
6. The same is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI ACT, 2005.
7. As per CrPC/IPC/other concerned rules.
8. Since, the main Charge sheet of the case has already been filed in the Hon'ble Court and supplementary investigation is going on, the matter is Sub-Judice before the L'd Court of South district. The matter comes under fiduciary relationship, the competent authority being the Hon'ble Trial Court. Various investigation reports of the case filed before the Hon'ble Court has already been provided to the complainant.
The requisite information is already part of supplementary investigation and the reply of the same will be filed before the concerned Court along with a copy to the complainant after taking permission of Hon'ble Court.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 12.03.2024 from the CPIO/Add. Dy. CP, South District and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video conferencing.
Respondent: 1. Mr. Bir Singh, ASSI, RTI Cell
2. Mr. Ashik, SI, RTI Cell
3. Mr. Akhilesh Bajpai, Inspector, SHO Mehrauli The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He further stated that it has been more than 10 years and the investigation in the matter has not been completed. He stated that misleading and incorrect information has been furnished by the PIO. He requested to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the PIO and impose penalty as per the Section 20 of the RTI Act.
The Respondent stated that a point-wise reply has been duly furnished to the Appellant from their official record. He further stated that the supplementary investigation has been completed and a copy of investigation report for the Appellant has been submitted by the IO before the trial court.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Commission at this stage is not inclined to accept the contention of the RTI Page 3 of 5 Applicant for initiating penal action against the CPIO in the absence of any malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
Xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an Page 4 of 5 inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision:04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty."
In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no intervention is warranted in this case under RTI Act.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5