Central Information Commission
S. K. Nayyar vs Delhi Police on 19 May, 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/2024/124109
Shri S. K. Nayyar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, South District ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.05.2025
Date of Decision : 15.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.05.2024
PIO replied on : 28.05.2024
First Appeal filed on : 10.06.2024
First Appellate Order on : 05.07.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 30.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Whether inquiry officer Arun Kumar took the permission from higher authorities/Competent authority before the arrest of senior citizen age around 89 years/applicant. If information is' Yes' provide certified copies in this regard.
2. When the applicant was arrested on 04/7/2023 by IO Arun Kumar was the higher authority informed about the arrest of the senior citizen aged 89 (applicant).
3. If information of point number 2 is in 'affirmative' then provide details in this regard and if information of point number 2 is 'negative' then provide relevant speaking orders.
4. The approval for arrest of senior citizen age around 89 years (applicant) by Sub Inspector Arun Kumar was taken in advance or was sought on the same day i.e 04/7/203. Provide relevant speaking order/documents in this regard.
5. Whether competent authority granted the approval to arrest the senior citizen age around 89 years to the Sub-inspector Arun Kumar.
6. Who was the higher authority/competent authority who granted the permission for arrest of senior citizen age around 89 years. Provide details in this regard."
The CPIO, Addl. DCP-I, South District vide letter dated 28.05.2024 replied as under:-
"This is to inform you that the Case FIR No-08/23 of PS Saket U/S 465/467/471/120-B/34 IPC is pending enquiry at ACP/DIU. Hence, the Page 1 of 3 requisite information cannot be provided keeping in view of u/s 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act 2005 as It would impede the process of investigation."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.06.2024. The FAA, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Hauz Khas, Delhi vide order dated 05.07.2024 held as under:-
"The undersigned has carefully examined the contents of the appeal, RTI request dated nil, of the appellant and found that the PIO/SD has supplied requisite information on the basis of report received from ACP/DIU, 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, hearing notice was issued to the appellant vide this office letter No. 894 RTI Cel VSD dated 03.07.2024 to appear before First Appellate Authority on 04.07.2024 at 03:00 P.M. as requested by the appellant in his instant appeal. The appellant's daughter Dr. Anuradha Mehta attended the hearing on behalf of appellant, during the hearing the undersigned (Deputy Commissioner of Police-cum-First Appellate Authority) has passed verbally directions "provide update information". Therefore, ACP/DIU, South District, was again directed to provide the update information on the instant appeal. Accordingly, the reply received from ACP/DIU, South District, New Delhi is attached herewith, which is self explanatory into the matter."
A reply dated 04.07.2024 from SI, DIU/SD has been enclosed with the FAA's order which reveals as under:
It is submitted that the point- wise reply of queries asked in RTI has already been sent. Further in regard of RTI Appeal, it is again submitted that, as the case FIR No. 8/2023 of P$ Saket u/s 465/471/120B/34 IPC is pending investigation, any information related to senior officers from either side accused as well as complainant, approvals, supplementary complaints, statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. RTI Act-2005 u/s S. 8(1)(h) provides exemption to such information in the interest of fair investigation. Hence, the information asked through RTI by applicant could not be provided at this stage. Further, after conclusion of investigation the copy of complete Charge-sheet with annexures will be provided to applicant as he is one of the accused in the aforesaid case FIR.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 28.04.2025 has been received from the PIO, South District reiterating the above facts.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Dr. Anuradha Mehta represented the Appellant during hearing Respondent: ACP Subhash Malik and SI Rahul Lamba- -DIU, South District; HC Amit Singh - RTI Cell, South District were present during hearing.Page 2 of 3
The Appellant's representative contended that since the Appellant at the age of 89 years was suddenly arrested by the Delhi Police, the aforementioned information have been sought. The Respondent present during hearing reiterated that reply had been sent to the Appellant. It transpired during the hearing that chargesheet had been filed on 24.04.2025, but copy thereof had not been sent so far to the Appellant, since he had not been summoned so far to join the hearing. The FIR No. 8/2023 of P$ Saket mentioned by the Respondent in their records was filed invoking Section 465/471/120B/34 IPC, and two of the three sections mentioned are non cognisable offences and hence no arrests could be made by the police without arrest warrant.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the chargesheet has been filed by the Respondents and also the information sought by the Appellant have no bearing with investigation. Hence blanket denial of all information invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is not the correct nor acceptable in law. Accordingly, the PIO, South District, Delhi Police is hereby directed to furnish a point wise revised reply providing correct information on all the six queries raised by the Appellant. The revised reply should be sent by the Respondent within two weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report in this regard shall be submitted positively before the Commission within a week thereafter.
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)