Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Delhi Police on 17 March, 2022
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 Nos.
िशकायत सं या / Complaint/Appeal Nos.
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/695956 CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698471
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604143 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/603228
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/695958 CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698473
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/695959 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/602674
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604555 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697278
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/695961 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697280
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604554 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697282
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/697370 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697322
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/698665 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698412
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/697856 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697325
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698396 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697332
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698159 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697865
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607307 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698397
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698169 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698403
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607291 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698406
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698464 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698408
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698466 CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698405
CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698469
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/602176
Shri Varun Krishna ... अपीलकता /Appellant
िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 10.03.2022
Date of Decision : 17.03.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
Since both the parties are the same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on dated
695956 10.11.2020 08.12.2020 - - 12.12.2020
604143 10.11.2020 08.12.2020 08.12.2020 14.01.2021 09.02.2021
695958 10.11.2020 08.12.2020 - - 12.12.2020
695959 08.11.2020 08.12.2020 - - 12.12.2020
Page 1 of 33
604555 08.11.2020 08.12.2020 08.12.2020 07.01.2021 11.02.2021
695961 08.11.2020 08.12.2020 - - 12.12.2020
604554 08.11.2020 08.12.2020 08.12.2020 07.01.2021 11.02.2021
697370 20.10.2020 11.11.2020 11.11.2020 02.12.2020 23.12.2020
698665 20.10.2020 11.11.2020 11.11.2020 02.12.2020 31.12.2021
697856 22.10.2020 25.11.2020 23.11.2020 24.11.2020 27.12.2020
698396 22.10.2020 25.11.2020 23.11.2020 23.12.2020 30.12.2020
698159 18.12.2020 21.12.2020 21.12.2020 - 29.12.2020
607307 17.12.2020 15.01.2021 15.01.2021 13.02.2021 01.03.2021
698169 18.12.2020 21.12.2020 21.12.2020 - 29.12.2020
607291 18.12.2020 12.01.2021 12.01.2021 10.02.2021 01.03.2021
698464 19.10.2020 19.11.2020 19.11.2020 22.12.2020 30.12.2020
698466 20.10.2020 19.11.2020 19.11.2020 22.12.2020 30.12.2020
698469 04.11.2020 04.12.2020 04.12.2020 - 30.12.2020
602176 04.11.2020 04.12.2020 04.12.2020 02.01.2021 27.01.2021
698471 04.11.2020 04.12.2020 04.12.2020 - 30.12.2020
603228 04.11.2020 04.12.2020 04.12.2020 02.01.2021 03.02.2021
698473 05.11.2020 04.12.2020 04.12.2020 - 30.12.2020
602674 05.11.2020 04.12.2020 04.12.2020 02.01.2021 30.01.2021
697278 18.10.2020 18.11.2020 18.11.2020 22.12.2020 22.12.2020
697280 16.10.2020 18.11.2020 18.11.2020 22.12.2020 22.12.2020
697282 16.10.2020 18.11.2020 18.11.2020 22.12.2020 22.12.2020
697322 20.10.2020 19.11.2020 19.11.2020 22.12.2020 23.12.2020
698412 20.10.2020 09.11.2020 19.11.2020 22.12.2020 30.12.2020
697325 19.10.2020 19.11.2020 19.11.2020 22.12.2020 23.12.2020
697332 20.10.2020 19.11.2020 19.11.2020 22.12.2020 23.12.2020
697865 01.10.2020 03.11.2020 03.11.2020 30.11.2020 27.12.2020
698397 26.10.2020 25.11.2020 27.11.2020 23.12.2020 30.12.2020
698403 27.10.2020 25.11.2020 27.11.2020 23.12.2020 30.12.2020
698406 27.10.2020 25.11.2020 27.11.2020 23.12.2020 30.12.2020
698408 27.10.2020 25.11.2020 27.11.2020 23.12.2020 30.12.2020
698405 27.10.2020 25.11.2020 27.11.2020 23.12.2020 30.12.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/695956 (2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604143 (3) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/695958 The Complainant/Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 10.11.2020 seeking information on the following points:-Page 2 of 33
The CPIO, vide letter dated 08.12.2020 replied as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied by the response, tthe Appellant/ Complainant filed a first irst appeal dated 08.12.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, vide order dated 07.01.2021 directed the CPIO to reconsider the RTI application and provide a fresh point wise reply within 10 working days.
In compliance with the FAA' s order dated 07.01.2021, the PIO/Addl.DCP, East Delhi, Delhi Police vide letter 15.01.2021 furnished point wise information to the Appellant/ Complainant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal. He filed the Complaint on 12.12.2020 on the ground that the PIO was obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention. The Second Appeal was filed on 09.02.2021 on the ground that the order of the FAA had not been complied with.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He alleged that there was a non compliance of the FAA's order as satisfactory information was not provided. During the he hearing, he prayed for disclosure of the inward register of PS Ashok Nagar showing the entry of Page 3 of 33 complaint forwarded by the DCP's office dated 25.09.2020 as sought in point no 1 of the RTI application.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He agreed to provide information on point no 1 of the RTI application.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East District, Delhi Police to re-examine point no 1 of the RTI application and provide information as per available record to the Appellant by 30.04.2022. The Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly. As regards the Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO since efforts have been made to provide information within the stipulated time period hence the Complaint stands dismissed.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/695959 (5) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604555 The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2020 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO, vide letter dated 08.12.2020 replied as under:-Page 4 of 33
Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant/ Complainant filed a first appeal dated 08.12.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, vide order dated 07.01.2021 directed the CPIO to reconsider the RTI application and provide a fresh point wise reply within 10 working days.
In compliance with the FAA' s order dated 07.01.2021, the PIO/Addl.DCP, East Delhi, Delhi Police vide letter 15.01.2021 furnished point wise information to the Appellant/ Complainant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal. He filed the Complaint on 12.12.2020 on the ground that the PIO was obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention. The Second Appeal Appe was filed on 11.02.2021 .02.2021 on the ground that the order of the FAA had not been complied with.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He alleged that there was a non compliance of the FAA's order as satisfactory information was not provided. He further stated that there was obstruction of information sought in point 2 to 5 of the RTI application and no action was taken by the FAA for non compliance of its orders. While specifically specifica referring to point no 2, the Appellant/ Complainant argued that response to the said point cannot be same as that for point no 1 and that some document/ file noting should exist with regard to disposal of his complaint mentioned in the said point. With regard to points 3 to 5 he argued that the information sought was incorrectly denied not falling within the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this context, he specifically referred to point no 5 of the RTI application wherein he desired the copies es of rules/ regulations/ guideline/ manual pertaining to IO's responsibility and duties after receiving complaints.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the complaint referred in the RTI application was filed since the issues raised did not fall within their jurisdiction. However, with regard to point no 2 of the RTI application he stated that copy of the document pertaining to the disposal of the complaint will be provided to the Appellant/ Complainant, if available. Regarding point no 3 and 4 he stated that no such information is available with them. On point no 5 he stated that they are guided by the provisions of CrPC and relevant standing orders for investigating complaints.
Page 5 of 33Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both bo the parties, the Commission observes that a satisfactory response was not provided in compliance with the FAA's order. On perusal of the RTI queries it is evident that points 2 and 5 of the RTI applicatio application n should have been clearly replied with available information. Therefore, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East District, Delhi Police to re re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised response as per available le record to the Appellant by 3030.04.2022.
.04.2022. The Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.As regards the Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO hence the Compla Complaint stands dismissed.
(6) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/695961 (7) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604554 The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2020 seeking information on the following points-
The CPIO, vide letter dated 08 08.11.2020 replied as under:-
Page 6 of 33Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant/ Complainant filed a first appeal dated 08.12.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, vide order dated 07.01.2021 directed the CPIO to reconsider the RTI application and provide a fresh point wise reply within 10 working days.
In compliance with the FAA' s order dated 07.01.2021, the PIO/Addl.DCP, East Delhi, Delhi Police vide letter 15.01.2021 furnished point wise information to the Appellant/ Complainant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal. He filed the Complaint on 12.12.2020 on the ground that the PIO was obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention. The Second Appeal was filed on 11.02.2021 on the ground that the order of the FAA had not been complied with.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He alleged that there was a non compliance of the FAA's order as satisfactory information was not provided. He further stated that there was obstruction of information sought in point 2 to 5 of the RTI application and no action was taken by the FAA for non compliance of its orders. While specifically referring to point no 2, the Appellant/ Complainant argued that response to the said point cannot be same as that for point no 1 and that some document/ file noting should exist with regard to disposal of his complaint mentioned in the said point. With regard to points 3 to 5 he argued that the information sought was incorrectly denied not falling within the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this context, he specifically referred to point no 5 and stated that the details of the IO investigating his complaint constitute information within the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the complaint referred to in the RTI application was filed since the issues raised did not fall within their jurisdiction. However, with regard to point no 2 of the RTI application he stated that copy of the document pertaining to the disposal of the complaint will be provided to the Appellant/ Complainant, if available. Regarding point no 3 and 4 he stated that no such information is available with them. On point no 5 he stated that the details of the IO were already provided to the Appellant/ Complainant vide reply dated 08.11.2020.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and on a reading of replies dated 08.11.2020 and 15.01.2021, the Commission observes that a satisfactory response was provided on points 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the RTI application. With regard to point no 2, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East District, Delhi Police to re-examine the said point and provide a revised response as per available record to the Appellant by 30.04.2022. The Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly. As regards the Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission is unable to attribute Page 7 of 33 any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO hence the Complaint stands dismissed.
(8) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/697370 (9) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/698665 The Complainant/Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 20.10.2020 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, East District, vide letter dated 11.11.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.11.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, vide order dated 02.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal. He filed the Complaint on 23.12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA is violating the principles of natural justice. The Second Appeal was filed on
31.12.2020 on the same grounds as the Complaint. In addition it was contended that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the list of official vehicles in the O/o the DCP, East District as sought in point no 1 of the RTI application and the pollution certificates of the vehicles as requested in point no 3 should be provided by the PIO.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He feigned ignorance regarding the availability of pollution certificates and stated that the available records need to be re-examined.
Page 8 of 33Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the PIO cum AddlAddl. DCP, East District, Delhi Police to re-examine points 1 and 3 of the RTI application and provide a revised response as per availablele record to the Appellant by 30 30.04.2022.
.04.2022. The Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly. As regards the Complaint filed u/s u 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO hence the Complaint stands dismissed.
(10) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/697856 (11) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698396 The Complainant/Appellant /Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.10.2020 seeking certified copies on the following points:-
The CPIO, vide online reply dated 25.11.2020 intimated as under:-
Dissatisfied by the response, tthe Complainant /Appellant filed First Appeals Appeal dated 23.11.2020 and 25.11.2020.
The FAA/DCP, East District, v vide order dated 23.12.2020 held d as under:-
under:
No reply pertaining to the compliance of the order of the FAA is available on the Commission's record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appealon the ground that both Page 9 of 33 the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He alleged that the FAA's order had not been complied with till date and that point wise information as sought in the RTI application was not provided. He further alleged that satisfactory action was not taken on his complaint and that kalandara with map of illegal encroachments ought to have been prepared by the Respondent.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the order of the FAA had been complied vide letter dated 04.01.2021 and copy of the detailed inquiry report on the complaint was provided to the Appellant/ Complainant.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties the Commission observes that an appropriate response has been provided by the PIO. The Appellant/ Complainant has misconstrued the RTI mechanism as a grievance redressal system challenging the manner in which investigation is conducted and the documents prepared while doing so which is clearly outside the scope of the RTI Act, 2005. In a catena of judgements, the higher courts have held that RTI mechanism is not meant for redressal of grievance. Furthermore, the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO to initiate penal action u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matters. The Second Appeal/ Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.
(12) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698159 (13) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607307 The Complainant/ Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.12.2020 & 17.12.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:-Page 10 of 33
The CPIO, vide letter dated 15.01.2021 replied as under:-
Point 1 to 4: The Complaint of Sh. Devendra Prasad Yadav is still pending for enquiry with EO/HC Kuldeep of PS-New Ashok Nagar. Hence, the remaining information sought by you cannot be provided at this stage as the same is exempted u/s 8(1) (h) of RTI Act-2005.
Point 5: SHO New Ashok Nagar Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant/ Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.01.2021. The FAA, vide order dated 13.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal. He filed the Complaint on 29.12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention by showing deemed refusal u/s 7 (2) in a life and liberty matter. The Second Appeal was filed on 01.03.2021 on the same grounds as the Complaint. In addition it was contended that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He alleged that a false complaint was filed against him by SHO Pramod Kumar for raising the issue of illegal encroachment. He stated that information on points 1 to 4 was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (h) and prayed for disclosure of the complaint on the ground that he is an accused in the case. In addition he stated that copy of the inward register page where the complaint of Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav was registered should also be provided.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the copy of the inquiry report will be provided to the Appellant/ Complainant once the Page 11 of 33 investigation in the matter was completed. However, the copies of complaints were not disclosed to a third party prior to completion of investigations since the issues raised therein may pertain to cognizable offences and the accused may evade arrest. Thus, copy of a complaint was not disclosed to an accused in accordance with Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission finds that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Section 207 of the CrPC, 1973 broadly allows an accused the disclosure of police report, first information report recorded u/s 54, statements of witnesses u/s 161 (3), confessions and statements recorded u/s 164 and any other document or relevant extract forwarded to the magistrate with the police report u/s 173 (5) provided that in case such document or relevant extract is voluminous then inspection of records shall be ordered by the magistrate. However, the above mentioned right accrues to the accused only upon commencement of the trial. Nonetheless, taking exception to the above mentioned rule position, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India and Ors WP (Crl) 68/2016 decided on 07.09.2016 has provided clear guidelines for disclosure of FIRs registered on the official websites within 24 hours of registration. However, disclosure of sensitive FIRs is only permissible if a representation is filed before the Superintendent of Police in Rural Areas and Commissioner of Police for Metropolitan Areas who shall constitute a Committee of 3 officers to decide the grievance within 3 days from the receipt of the representation. As regards the present case, the Appellant/ Complainant is not seeking a copy of the FIR but a complaint filed against him which may or may not materialise into a FIR. Hence, disclosure of the same is not allowed. Furthermore, the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO to initiate penal action u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matters. The Second Appeal/ Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.
(14) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698169 (15) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/607291 The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.12.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:-
Page 12 of 33The CPIO vide only reply dated 12.01.2021 informed that a complaint of Shri Devender Prasad Yadav was received in PS New Ashok Nagar for taking necessary action. In this regard a notice was sent to the applicant for joining the enquiry to dispose of the aforesaid complaint as per procedure.
Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.01.2021. The FAA/ DCP, East Delhi vide order dated 10.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal. He filed the Complaint on 29.12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention by showing deemed refusal u/s 7 (2) in a life and liberty matter. The Second Appeal was filed on 01.03.2021 on the same grounds as the Complaint. In addition it was contended that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the issues raised pertained to a complaint filed against him and that a Head Constable cannot be authorised as an IO to investigate it. Thus, he requested for disclosure of the provision of law as per which HC can be designated as an IO. Furthermore, the provision of law as per which a notice is issued to an accused should also be provided.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the power to appoint HC as the investigating officer is derived from the CrPC. However, he expressed his inability to instantaneously recall the provision of law in this respect and prayed for a direction from the Commission to pass a revised reply in the matter.
Decision Page 13 of 33 Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East District, Delhi Police to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised response as per available availab record to the Appellant by 30 30.04.2022.
.04.2022. The Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly. As regards the Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO hence the Complaint stands dismissed.
(16) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698464 (17) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697325 The Complainant/ / Appellan Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following information pertaining to information of illegal encroachment provided to SHO PS New Ashok Nagar on 14.09.2020 and DCP, East Delhi on 19.10.2020:-
The CPIO, vide online reply dated 19.11.2020 intimated as under:-
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Complainant/ Complainant Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2020. The FAA, vide order dated 22.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling ling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission Commiss with the instant Complaint dated 30.12.2020 .12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was bunking his quasi judicial responsibilities.
responsibilities A Second Appeal dated 23.12.2020 was filed on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was bunking his quasi judicial responsibilities.Page 14 of 33
Facts emerging during the hearing The Complainant/ / Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He argued d that an incorrect and misleading reply was provided by the PIO stating that at the information sought was not covered within Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. He emphasized that he was seeking details of the action taken on his whatsapp communication which falls within the purview of the RTI Act.
The Respondent represented by Shri S Sunil unil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that no register/ record is maintainedd for complaints filed through W Whatsapp and that they possess no power to remove old encroachments for which the Complainant is required to approach MCD.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission finds that a clear and cogent reply was not provided to the Complainant and that the explanation offered during the hearing should have been reflected in the PIO's rreply.
eply. The Commission therefore directs the PIO cum Addl. DCP, East District, Delhi Police to provide a clear and precise response to t the Appellant by 30.04.2022 30.04.2022.. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. As regards the Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission cautions the PIO to ensure that appropriate replies in accordance nce with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 are provided in future.
(18) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698466 (19) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697332 The Appellant/ Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 20.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:
following:-
The CPIO, vide letter dated 19.11.2020 replied as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant/ Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2020. The FAA, vide order dated 22.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.Page 15 of 33
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on 30.12.2020 on the ground that the PIO was obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention. A Second Appeal dated 23.12.2020 was also filed on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was bunking his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that there was a blanket denial of information u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 despite the fact that the information sought pertained to the official duty performed by a public servant.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that there were a total number of 56 pending cases with Shri Parikshit, IO as on the date of his transfer. However, current status of each case cannot be provided being third party information. With regard to allotment of these cases after the transfer of Shri Parikshit, IO it was stated that the same cannot be provided since the information is scattered as cases were allotted to multiple IOs.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that while exemption u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) was correctly claimed with regard to the information sought in points 1 and 4 of the RTI application, information regarding the total number and list of cases in which Shri Parikshit was appointed as the IO as on the date of his transfer from New Ashok Nagar PS and name and designation of the IO who will handle those cases after his transfer as sought in points 2 and 3 should have been provided as per the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East District, Delhi Police to provide information on points 2 and 3 of the RTI application by 30.04.2022. With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. As regards the Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO hence the Complaint stands dismissed.
(19) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698469 (20) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/602176 The Complainant/Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.11.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:-Page 16 of 33
The CPIO, vide online reply dated 04.12.2020 intimated as under:-
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2020 04.12.2020.. The FAA/DCP, East Delhi vide order dated 02.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPI CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint and Second Appeal dated 30.12.2020 and 27.01.2021 respectively on the ground that both the PIO and FAA were obstructing the flow of information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that records sought were not voluminous since the data of the complaints pertaining to threatening phone calls received by the DCP, East District should be available in a compiled form and that Rule 4 (f) of the RTI Rules, 2012 was misquoted. In addition, he stated that at this stage he was interested to obtain information on points 2 and 3 of the RTI application which should be provided to him free of cost instead of offering inspection.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the information sought is scattered in various police stations hence inspection of records was offered to the Appellant/ Complainant which he did not avail. However, during the hearing he stated that the inspection of records on point no 2 can be provided to the Appellant/ Complainant in the O/o the DCP, East Delhi, if so directed by the Commission.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East Dis District, trict, Delhi Police to offer inspection of available records on points 2 and 3 of the RTI application to the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time on or before 30.04.2022 30 and submit a compliance report to the Commission thereon within a week from fro the schedule date of ins inspection.. The Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly. As regards the Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO hence the Complaint stands dismissed.
(21)) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698471 (22) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/603228 The Complainant/Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.11.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:
following:-Page 17 of 33
The CPIO, vide letter dated 04.12.2020 replied as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2020 04.12.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, vide order dated 02.01.2021 directed the CPIO to reconsider the RTI application applicati and provide a fresh point wise reply within 10 working days.
In compliance with the FAA' s order dated 02.01.2021, the PIO/Addl.DCP, East Delhi, Delhi Police vide letter 14.01.2021 furnished point wise information to the Appellant/ Complainant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint and Second Appeal. He filed the Complaint dated 30.12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the flow of information knowingly, deliberately iberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities. The Second Appeal dated 03.02.2021 was filed on the ground that the FAA's order has not been complied with till date.
Facts emerging during the h hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that complete information regarding the details of the manner in which his grievance mentioned in the RTI application was not provided and that the FAA's order der was not complied with in letter and spirit.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that all the points referred in the RTI application have been appropriately answered in the reply dated 14.01.2021 which included a copy of the inquiry report dated 03.11.2020 wherein the details of the action taken on the grievance were given.
Decision Page 18 of 33 Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties the Commission observes that an appropriate response has been provided by the PIO. The Appellant/ Complainant has misconstrued the RTI mechanism to be grievance redressal system stem challenging the manner in which investigation is conducted and the documents prepared while doing so which is clearly outside the scope of the RTI Act, 2005. In a catena of judgements, the higher courts have held that the RTI mechanism is not meant fo forr redressal of grievances.
grievance Furthermore, the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO to initiate penal action u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matters.
ma The Second Appeal/ Complaint stand disposed off accordingly.
(23)) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/698473 (24)) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/602674 The Complainant/Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 05.11.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:
following:-
The CPIO, vide letter dated 04.12.2020 replied as under:
under:-Page 19 of 33
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, vide order dated 02.01.2021 directed the CPIO to reconsider the RTI application and provide a fresh point wise reply within 10 working days.
In compliance with the FAA' s order dated 02.01.2021, the PIO/Addl.DCP, East Delhi, Delhi Police vide letter 14.01.2021 furnished point wise information to the Appellant/ Complainant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint and Second Appeal. He filed the Complaint dated 30.12.2020on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the flow of information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities. The Second Appeal dated 30.01.2021 was filed on the ground that the FAA's order has not been complied with till date.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that satisfactory information was not provided on points 3 and 4 of the RTI application as the documentary proof of criminal intimidation of police officials by him through audio calls was not provided. He alleged that his phone number was blocked by Addl DCP, East District due to which he was unable to reach him for his grievance redressal.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the information as per available records was provided to the Appellant/ Complainant Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, 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. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant/ Complainant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal/ Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.
(25) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697278 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated18.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:-
Page 20 of 33The CPIO, vide letter dated 18.11.2020 replied as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2020. The FAA, vide order dated 22.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the flow of information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was bunking his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that records sought were not voluminous since the data of the mobile m numbers blocked should be available in a compiled form and that Rule 4 (f) of the RTI Rules, 2012 was misquoted.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that information as per available record was provid provided to the Appellant.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the Page 21 of 33 provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Inspection of records as offered by the PIO may be availed by the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time. NNo other intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant/ Complainant is advised ised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(26)) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697280 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 16.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:-
The CPIO, vide letter dated 18.11.2020 replied as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2020. The FAA, vide order dated 22.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated22.12.2020on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was bunking his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that information sought was not provided and inspection of records was offered misquoting Rule 4 (f) of the RTI Rules, 2012. Furthermore, the FAA passed a cyclostyled order without application of mind.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated d in the hearing through audio conference. He reiterated the earlier reply provided to the Appellant/Complainant and stated that a revised reply will be provided, if so directed by the Commission.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the su submissions bmissions made by both the parties the Commission observes that information on point no 1 regarding the Page 22 of 33 leave records of a public servant is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In thi this context, the relevant extracts of the he decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dr R S Gupta vs GNCTD and Ors, LPA No 207/2020 decided on 31.08.2020:
31.08.2020:-
"Further, the appellant is seeking attendance record of the other staff members of the Geeta Senior Secondary School No.2, Sultanpuri, Delhi. Since the information requested relates to attendance record, it would entail revealing medical and personal information of an individual. The attendance record is part of service record which is a matter between the employee and the employer and o ordinarily rdinarily these aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information".
The disclosure of this information ex ex-facie facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not no able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information w would ould be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less 'larger public interest'. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal."
However, with regard to points 2, 3 and 4 of the RTI application, the PIO and Addl Ad DP, East District is directed to provide a revised reply in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant by 30.04.2022. With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. As regards the Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO to initiate penal action u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the Complaint stands disposed posed off accordingly.
(27)) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697282 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 16.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following information relating to his email dated 16.10.2020 addressed to the DCP, East District, Delhi Police Police:-
The CPIO, vide letter dated 18.11.2020 replied as under:
under:-Page 23 of 33
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2020. The FAA, vide order dated 22.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated22.12.2020on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the flow of information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that reply was provided after completion of the period of 30 days as prescribed u/s 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, instead of providing him the information, the PIO directed him to appear in person at the PS, pay the requisite fee and obtain the information after verification of his identity which was done only to harass him since the information could have been forwarded through post after payment of the charges as per the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, he prayed for compensation of Rs 10/- for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and to pass strictures against the PIO for not acting in accordance with the RTIAct.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He reiterated the reply of the PIO/ FAA as available on record.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East District, Delhi Police to re-examine the RTI application and provide available information free of cost to the Appellant by 30.04.2022. The Second Appeals stand disposed off with the above direction.
(28) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697322 (29) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698412 The Appellant filed an online RTI applications dated 20.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following information relating to the email dated 27.11.2017/ 28.11.2017 forwarded to the O/o the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police:-Page 24 of 33
The CPIO/DCP, Police Hdqrs, Delhi Police vide letter dated 09.11.2020 replied as under:-
The CPIO, East District, Delhi Police, vide ide online reply dated 19.11.2020 intimated as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2020. The FAA, vide order dated 22.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.12.2020/ 30.12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the flow of information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafid malafidee intention and that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.Page 25 of 33
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that an incorrect reply was provided since the issues raised in the RTI application pertained to the action taken on his complaint dated 27.11.2017 which was not voluminous in nature and should have been provided.
Thus, he prayed for initiation of penal action against the PIO.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that since several cases of thefts were reported in the vicinity of Vasundhara Enclave for the period mentioned in the RTI application, inspection of records was offered to the Appellant/ Complainant.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that the response regarding inspection of records was valid with respect to point no 5 of the RTI application. However, on points 1 to 4 the Appellant/ Complainant was seeking information regarding the action taken on his representations, etc which has not been answered. Therefore, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East District, Delhi Police to re- examine the RTI application and provide a revised response as per available record on points 1 to 4 to the Appellant by 30.04.2022. The Second Appeals stand disposed off with the above direction. As regards the Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intent to the conduct of the PIO hence the Complaint stands dismissed.
(31) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/697865 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 01.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:-
Page 26 of 33The CPIO/DCP, Police e Hdqrs, Delhi Police vide letter dated 19.10.2020 .2020 replied as under:-
The CPIO,East District,, Delhi Police vide online reply dated 03.11.2020 intimated as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.11.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, Delhi Police vide order dated 14.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated27.12.2020on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention n and that the FAA was bunking his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that he wanted inspection of the mobile number of Addl. DCP, East Delhi to ascertain if his mobile number was blocked which should have been allowed being a government property.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that they were willing to provide a revised response with respect to the action taken on the Appellant's complaint dated 21.09.2020, if so directed by the Commission.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that inspection of the mobile phone of Addl. Addl DCP, East District cannot be allowed to the Appellant as the same may contain personal as well as confidential dential information relating to other investigations which is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. With regard to the action taken on Appellant's representation/ Complaint dated 21.09.2020, the PIO cum Addl DCP, East DistDistrict rict is directed to provide a revised response on points 2 and 3 of the RTI application to the Appellant by 30.04.2022.Page 27 of 33
(32)) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698397 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 26.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:-
The CPIO, vide letter dated 25.11.2020 replied as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, vide order dated 23.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the flow of information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that a vague and misleading reply was provided since the complaint referred in the RTI application was sent to the Commissioner of Police through email and unlike the PGPORTAL no such portal for filing complaints separately exists for the Delhi Police. Moreover,, no details of the portal where he can check the status of the complaint were mentioned in the reply.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He apologised for the reply Page 28 of 33 provided to the Appellant, offered to provide a revised reply and also feigned ignorance regarding the basis on which the earlier reply was provided.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that a cryptic and vague reply has been provided to the Appellant without providing the details of the portal where the action taken can be retrieved.
d. The Commission therefore directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East District, Delhi Police to re re-examine examine the RTI application and provide a revised response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant by 30.04.2022. With the above dir direction the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(33)) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698403 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 27.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:-
The CPIO, vide letter dated 25.11.2020 replied as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, vide order dated 23.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved ed and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ Page 29 of 33 FAA were obstructing the flow of information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that on one hand in the RTI reply he was requested to know the status of his complaint on the PGPORTAL whereas in the reply provided in the PGPORTAL it was mentioned that the status can be known after filing RTI application. Thus, deliberate attempt was made to deny him the information with a malafide intention.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. He apologised for the reply provided to the Appellant, offered to provide a revised reply and feigned ignorance regarding the basis on which the earlier reply was provided.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission finds that a cryptic and vague reply has been provided to the Appellant and he has been made to run around from one forum to another but no information is provided. The Commission therefore directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East District to provide a revised point wise response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant and show cause to the Commission as to why penal action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him. The above mentioned direction should be complied with by 30.04.2022 under intimation to the Commission. The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off with the above direction.
(34) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698406 (35) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698408 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 27.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following information pertaining to Grievance NO PMOPG/E/2020/0935600 dated 23.10.2020 which was disposed off stating that:-
"Complainant can get the action taken report (ATR) through RTI application. No further action is made out on the present complaint"Page 30 of 33
The CPIO, vide online reply dated 25.11.2020 intimated as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, vide order dated 23.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ FAA were obstructing the flow of information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing Both the parties reiterated their submissions made in the last case i.e., CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698403 A/2020/698403 Decision Since similar issues have been heard and adjudicated in CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698403, no separate show cause notice is issued in the instant case. However, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, East District to provide a revised point wise response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant by 30.04.2022 under intimation to the Commission.
Page 31 of 33With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(36)) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/698405 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 27.10.2020 seeking certified copies of the following:-
The CPIO, vide letter dated 25.11.2020 replied as under:
under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2020. The FAA/DCP, East District, vide order dated 23.12.2020 stated as under:
under:-
No reply pertaining to the compliance of the FAA's order is available on the Commission's record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.12.2020 on the ground that both the PIO/ Page 32 of 33 FAA were obstructing the flow of information knowingly, deliberately and with a malafide intention and that the FAA was abdicating his quasi judicial responsibilities.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant and Shri Sunil Kumar, ACP, East District, Delhi Police participated in the hearing through audio conference. The Appellant stated that he does not wish to pursue the matter any further.
Decision In the light of the submission made by the Appellant not to pursue the matter any further the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as "withdrawn".
वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा)
Y. K. Sinha (वाई िस हा
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 33 of 33