Central Information Commission
Tanishk Lakhaani vs Delhi Police on 31 July, 2019
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 Nos. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/170680 and
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/181580
Tanishk Lakhaani ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o Addl. Deputy ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Police, South District, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 27.07.2017 FA : 24.08.2017 SA : 06.10.2017
CPIO : 17.08.2017 FAO : No Order Hearing : 16.07.2019
ORDER
1. Shri Tanishk Lakhaani filed two identical appeals in case Nos. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/170680 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/181580 in respect of two identical RTI applications dated 27.07.2017. Both these appeals are being clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.
Page 1 of 62. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, seeking information on 11 points pertaining to FIR No. 18/2017 dated 14.01.2017 registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj against him as well as the 'Status Report' (reply to Anticipatory Bail application) dated 12.07.2017 filed by I.O. IS Ram Pratap Yadav before Addl Sessions Judge, Patiala House, including, inter-alia, (i) a copy of the arrest permission, and (ii) total number of notices issued to the accused, Shri Tanishk Lakhani under Section 41A of to join the investigation.
3. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought for under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He further contended that the IO had filed a Status Report before the Court alleging that the accused did not cooperate during the investigation, whereas, he had fully cooperated with the Officer, hence, he had requested for the details of the summons issued to him, his attendance records, etc., on the dates when he was summoned to the Police Station. The appellant, therefore, requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for.
Hearing:
4. The appellant Shri Tanishk Lakhaani and the respondent Shri R.K. Parkhi, Inspector, South West District, Delhi Police, Delhi were present in person.
5. The appellant submitted that the respondent has wrongly denied the information sought for in totality on the grounds that the information sought for is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the same would Page 2 of 6 impede the process of investigation. The appellant further stated that the FAA vide order dated 06.10.2017 had directed the CPIO to provide the information sought for. However, no information has been provided to him in compliance with the order of the FAA. The appellant also submitted that vide point no. 1 he had sought copy of the arrest permission, which can be disclosed under RTI Act. Vide point no. 2, he had sought the number of notices issued under Section 41 or 41A to the accused. In response to this, the respondent has informed him that four notices have been issued. However, four notices had not been issued to him. Thus, the respondent had provided wrong information to him. Similarly, on all points, the respondent had either provided wrong information or did not provide the information sought for.
6. The respondent submitted that in compliance with the directions of the FAA dated 06.10.2017, a pointwise reply in response to the first appeal dated 24.08.2017 has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 26.08.2017. The appellant was informed that the case FIR No. 18 dated 14.01.2017, in which the appellant is the prime accused, is under investigation. Hence, the information sought for could not be provided. The appellant was also informed that only 4 notices were issued to him to join the investigation. The respondent, however, could not explain as to how disclosure of the information sought for would have impeded the investigation.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent has wrongly denied the information sought in totality on the grounds that its disclosure is exempted under Page 3 of 6 Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission notes that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 03/12/2007- WP(C) 3114/2007-Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anr. Has held as under:
"13. ......It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material......."
8. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to provide pointwise information to the appellant in response to his RTI application along with the dates of the notices issued to the appellant. As regards point no. 2 of the RTI application, the Commission also directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that four notices have been issued under Section 41 or 41A to the accused. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
9. The Commission further observes that the exemption was claimed due to an error of judgement on the part of the CPIO concerned. However, it cannot be said that the CPIO had acted consciously and deliberately with a malafide intention to provide incorrect or misleading information to the complainant. Further, no penalty can be imposed for wrong judgment, in view of the decision in the matter of Kripa Page 4 of 6 Shanker vs. Central Information Commission- judgment dated 18.09.2017 in W. P. (C) No. 8315/ 2017, wherein the High Court of Delhi held that:
"....13... Indisputably, merely because the view taken by a PIO is not correct, it would not lead to an inference that he is liable to penalty. There may be cases where the PIO is of the view that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act. If this view is subsequently found to be incorrect, it would not necessarily mean that he would be subjected to penalty. The question of imposition of penalty depends on whether the conduct of PIO is reasonable and whether there is any bonafide justification for denial of information; penalty is levied only if it is found that the information was denied without reasonable cause."
In view of the above ratio, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
10. With the above observations, both the appeals are disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 30.07.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) O/o Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South District, 1st Floor, DCP Office Complex, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South District, 1st Floor, DCP Office Complex, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
3. Shri Tanishk Lakhaani Page 6 of 6