Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rajesh Kumar vs Delhi Police on 25 July, 2025

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/2024/123433

Shri Rajesh Kumar                                                ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Delhi Police, South West District- Dwarka               ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                          :   22.07.2025
Date of Decision                         :   22.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           12.04.2024
PIO replied on                    :            - -
First Appeal filed on             :           01.06.2024
First Appellate Order on          :            - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :           20.07.2024

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.04.2024 seeking information about a complaint filed by him regarding the demise of his son who had been to the BSF camp for physical test. The Appellant sought the following points:-

"1. Status of the enquiry conducted in this regard had been conducted through ACP/Vasant Kunj and/or any other officer.

2. Status of the enquiry report conducted in this regard had been conducted through ACP/Vasant Kunj and/or any other officer.

3. Copy of the enquiry report conducted in this regard had been conducted through ACP/Vasant Kunj and/or any other officer.

4. Copy of statements of the witness taken during the court of the enquiry conducted taken place.

5. Details and copy of expert opinion if taken during the course of enquiry in order to find out the negligence of the BSF.

6. Details of the FIR if lodged in this regard, if any.

7. Details of the other candidates, who died in the very incident along with the son of the deceased".

Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2024 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 15.07.2025 has been received from CPIO which reveals that the CPIO, South West District had duly responded to the Appellant as under:

In this context, it is to inform you that the requisite point wise information as per reports received from SHO/Kapashera through ACP/Sub Division/Vasant Kunj/SWD (the principal supplier of the information) is as under:

        S.No.                        REPLY
         1&2              As per report PS Kapashera, status of the enquiry is
                     disposed by SDM Kapashera.
        3&4         You may obtain the requisite information from this office, after

depositing prescribed fee of Rs. 2/- per page (i.e. Rs. 14/ on a/c of 07 pages) by cash (fee under RTI Act), on any working day within a month during office hours from this office. You are requested to bring your identity proof at the time of obtaining the said documents.

5. As per report PS Kapashera, PM report is already given to diseases Father Mr. Rajesh Kumar.

6. As per report PS Kapashera, no such FIR registered only inquest prepared.

7. In this regard, the requisite information does not relate to this district.

It had been stated by the Respondent that the Appellant had filed two First Appeals on 01.06.2024 and 18.06.2024 and both had been decided by the FAA vide orders dated 27.06.2024 and 01.08.2024. In compliance of the FAA's order dated 01.08.2024, the PIO/South West district had provided the aforementioned information vide reply dated 30.08.2024.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: ACP Vijay Kumar- APIO/SWD; Insp. Hari Singh and HC Manoj Kumar were present during hearing.

The Respondent placed reliance on the written submission dated 15.07.2025 mentioned hereinabove to substantiate the fact that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant. A copy of the Final Inquest report was also submitted by the Respondent during the course of hearing.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act. Considering the fact that the response of the PIO is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

It is noted that the written submission dated 15.07.2025 filed by the Respondent before the Commission contains detailed and comprehensive information.

Hence, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to send a copy of the written submission dated 15.07.2025 with supporting annexures, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall also submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission, within one week thereafter. Considering the fact that appropriate information has already been provided to the Appellant and he has chosen not to attend the hearing, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)