Central Information Commission
Munish Singhal vs Delhi Police on 27 November, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/623498
Shri Munish Singhal, ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/ADCP-I, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police, Shahdara District,
Delhi - 110032
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2020. 26.11.2020
Date of Interim Decision : 29.05.2020
Date of Final Decision 27.11.2020
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.03.2018
PIO replied on : 09.04.2018
First Appeal filed on : 23.04.2018
First Appellate Order on : 15.05.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint dated : 14.06.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.03.2018 seeking information on
2 pointspertaining to enclosures in Enquiry Report (Investigation/Enquiry Completed) with referenceto DY No. 1620/PG Cell/SHD/dated 07.12.2017 and DY No. 1653/PG Cell/SHD/dated 12.12.2017. The requisite information is as under:-
1. Kindly provide copy of Enclosure F/A of the aforesaid enquiry report.
2. Kindly provide copy of Enclosure F/B of the aforesaid enquiry report.
3. Kindly provide copy of Enclosure F/C of the aforesaid enquiry report.
4. Kindly provide copy of Enclosure F/D of the aforesaid enquiry report.
5. Kindly provide copy of Enclosure F/E of the aforesaid enquiry report.
(Queries are Verbatim) The PIO/ADCP-I,vide letter dated 09.04.2018 denied the information under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
Page 1 of 4Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 23.04.2018 on the ground that the averred enquiry has been conducted on the basis of complaint submitted by him and that disclosure of information does not harm anyone. The FAA vide order dated 15.05.2018 denied the copies of requisite CDRs under Section 8(1)(j) & (e) of RTI Act, 2005. However, FAA also directed the PIO to provide the copies of FIR No. 551/17 under section 3, 4, 9 of the Delhi Police Gambling Act, PS Anand Vihar and bound down papers as mentioned in the enquiry report to the appellant within 10 working days therefrom.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission in the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that the exemptions invoked by the Respondent public authority are misplaced and incorrect. Upon being asked, he stated that there are only 5 enclosures that have been sought in the instant RTI Application wherein enclosures F/A, F/B and F/C of the enquiry report vide ref. No. DY No-1620/PG Cell/SHD/dated 07.12.2017 and ref no. DY No-1653/PG Cell/SHD/dated 12.12.2017 are pertaining to CDR having location information of the mobile number used by the accused HC Dheeraj, the Appellant and his brother. He further stated that on 18.06.2017, his father who was aged 70 years was assaulted by his elder brother. With regard to the said incident, Appellant along with his younger brother went to the Police station to file a complaint but the Police made the Appellant and his younger brother as accused persons. In addition, Appellant stated that the report filed by the Police gives a different version i.e., it has been mentioned that the scuffle was between the Appellant and his younger brother.
Appellant stated that the enclosures F/D and F/E of the enquiry report vide ref. No. DY No-1620/PG Cell/SHD/dated 07.12.2017 and ref no. DY No- 1653/PG Cell/SHD/dated 12.12.2017 are pertaining to the copy of FIR no. 551/17 under section 3, 4 and 9 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act, PS Anand Vihar, Delhi wherein the Enquiry Officer has involved the wife of the Appellant as accused, which is defamatory and illegal on the part of the Respondent public authority.
In addition, Appellant claimed that he was manhandled by one of the policemen when he was apprehended and since there was CCTV camera in the Police Station, he requested for a copy of the CCTV footage within 48 hours but he was denied the footage. Subsequently, he approached the Public Grievance Page 2 of 4 Commission wherein the Respondent claimed before the Chairman that the CCTV footage is not available. This is incorrect and illegal.
Shri Amrit Raj, Inspector disconnected/refused to take the call despite five attempts.
Interim Decision:
Upon perusal of records as well as on the basis of the averments of the Appellant, Commission is of the considered opinion that no directions can be given to the Respondent without providing a fair opportunity of hearing and by doing so, it would amount to violation of principle of audialterampartem, which is one of the essential principles of natural justice. Hence, Commission deems it fit that the instant Second Appeal be re-scheduled and appropriate notice be sent to the concerned Respondent.
Appeal may be re-scheduled for hearing after the lockdown is lifted. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant dated 23.11.2020 wherein he inter alia stated that the information was incorrectly denied by the FAA without even a speaking order citing Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. He stated that only an exemption u/s 8 (1) (g) could be invoked to obliterate by way of blacking out or severance only that part in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act. Explaining that he was the complainant on whose complaint the enquiry was instituted by the Public Grievance Commission in discharge of official duty and hence was definitely a public activity concerning the larger public interest. In support of his contention, the Appellant relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RBI vs Jayantilal Mistry dated 16.12.2015; decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India vs R.S. Khan dated 07.10.2020 and Supreme Court of India vs S.C. Agrawal and Anr dated 20.09.2009; decisions of the Commission in Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railways dated 15.05.2009 and Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh vs LokSabha Secretariat. Thus, the Appellant prayed to direct the Respondent to provide a copy of enclosures at F/A, F/B and F/C of the enquiry mentioned in the RTI application.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that the information was incorrectly denied by the Respondent u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act as the department was required to maintain the Call Detail Record (CDR) as per law and that the same was not held with them in a fiduciary capacity. Further exemption u/s 8 (1) (j) was also not applicable as the Appellant was seeking information pertaining to his own case and not any third party which may result in the invasion of their privacy. Moreover, he Page 3 of 4 stated that only location information was sought by him and that other details such as the transcripts of the calls/ SMS; personal details of the persons to whom calls were made were not desired.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Bhageshwar Kaushik, ACP, P.G. Cell through audio conference. He stated that in compliance with the FAA's order, the copies of FIR No. 551/17 under section 3, 4, 9 of the Delhi Police Gambling Act, PS Anand Vihar was provided to the Appellant. However, the remaining information was denied being exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission notes that at this stage the Appellant wants only the CDR location data of his own mobile number as also the mobile numbers of his brother and HC Dheeraj for 18.06.2017 between 12-00 noon to 10 PM, for an incident involving him that occurred on 18.06.2017. The Commission finds that the CDR location data of the Appellant alone should be provided since it pertains to a matter where he himself is a party. Hence, the Commission directs Shri Bhageshwar Kaushik, ACP, P.G. Cell to provide the CDR location data of the Appellant for the date and time mentioned above. A compliance report pertaining to the aforementioned direction should reach the Commission by 15.01.2021.
With the abovementioned direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 4 of 4